OldMarksman
Staff
Legally you have a castle doctrine.Technically, we have a castle doctrine.
Legally you have a castle doctrine.Technically, we have a castle doctrine.
They don't give you the right to shoot. Period. They MAY defend you if you are in the right and shoot. If you are in the wrong, they do NOT apply at all.
Have you read this?In Ohio it shifted the burden to the state to prove the shooting was NOT justified. That was its greatest impact here.
The Buckeye state remains the last in the country to retain the old model of self-defense as a true affirmative defense, keeping the burden of persuasion for self-defense on the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence. Simply because it failed to flow, as did every state, with the historical and morally appropriate shift of the burden of persuasion n self-defense to the state. This sad state of affairs makes Ohio a true laggard in properly protecting the due process rights of its residents.
No, that is incorrect, as previously pointed out to you in this post:TimSr said:In Ohio it shifted the burden to the state to prove the shooting was NOT justified. That was its greatest impact here.
Frank Ettin said:Have you got some legal authority for that? According to this article that was not the case as of July of 2013:Of the 50 states in the US, 49 of them require the State to disprove a defendant’s claim of self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. Ohio, on the other hand, requires that the defendant prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence....
2901.05 Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense.
(A) Every person accused of an offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof for all elements of the offense is upon the prosecution. The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.
(B)
(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force.
(2)
(a) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.
(b) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person who uses the defensive force uses it while in a residence or vehicle and the person is unlawfully, and without privilege to be, in that residence or vehicle.
(3) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section is a rebuttable presumption and may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence.
(C) As part of its charge to the jury in a criminal case, the court shall read the definitions of "reasonable doubt" and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," contained in division (D) of this section.
(D) As used in this section:
(1) An "affirmative defense" is either of the following:
(a) A defense expressly designated as affirmative;
(b) A defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, on which the accused can fairly be required to adduce supporting evidence.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it and that is designed to be occupied by people lodging in the building or conveyance at night, regardless of whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or is mobile or immobile. As used in this division, a building or conveyance includes, but is not limited to, an attached porch, and a building or conveyance with a roof over it includes, but is not limited to, a tent.
(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as a guest.
(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.
(E) "Reasonable doubt" is present when the jurors, after they have carefully considered and compared all the evidence, cannot say they are firmly convinced of the truth of the charge. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs or depending on moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is proof of such character that an ordinary person would be willing to rely and act upon it in the most important of the person's own affairs.
...The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.....
...a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another ... if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force....
...the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force. ...
To expand on my earlier request for evidence:TimSr said:That was changed a year or so ago.
Current with legislation signed by the Governor as of 7/16/2015
As I explained in post 124, Ohio law is not what you seem to think it is.
Nonsense.TimSr said:You have the most recent version. I was talking about the old article you and Oldmarksman drummed up. They look like the arguments that were used for changing the law to its current form....
Phooey! You have the language of the statute and my analysis of what it means and how it would apply. So prove me wrong.TimSr said:As I explained in post 124, Ohio law is not what you seem to think it is.
As you explained it, the law does not say what you think it says.
Maybe not. But, what if you confront the guy with a gun and he calls your bluff? "Sorry, but you can't shoot me over stuff!" As I said in another thread, criminals are getting bolder. So instead, as he tries to shuffle past you, you kick him in the crotch, and while he's writhing in pain, you hold the gun on him until the police come, whom hopefully, you've already called. You didn't kill him, he didn't get away. And no, I'm not "letting him go with my stuff if that's all he wants." I worked too damn hard for what I have, have been the victim of several thefts, and the victim of higher insurance premiums, simply because too many people in the area have the same attitude, "Meh, my insurance will cover it." When he tries to sue me for "assault and battery" or "barring his exit" even though he was attempting to make off with my property, I'll deal with the idiots in court. Personally, I'm sick to death of simply "letting criminals go." And anybody that doesn't like how Texas deals with intruders, hasn't spent any time in the burbs of Detroit.I am not talking about someone threatening you or making menacing moves towards you. I am talking about Smedley the burglar attempting to steal your weed eater or your TV. You are going to shoot him, and potentially kill him, over that? Even if the law says you can my bet would be the lawyer fees will be more than the value of whatever was being stolen. Better to up your insurance on your personal property than waste your retirement account defending yourself over killing someone stealing from you.
Bad situation for you to be in. Avoid it.But, what if you confront the guy with a gun and he calls your bluff?
At which point you will most certainly have very little influence, if any at all. How would one "deal with the idiots in court"?.When he tries to sue me for "assault and battery" or "barring his exit" even though he was attempting to make off with my property, I'll deal with the idiots in court.
For those of us who have done that, some of us understand that that is a good outcome indeed.Personally, I'm sick to death of simply "letting criminals go."
What do you know about "how Texas deals with intruders"?And anybody that doesn't like how Texas deals with intruders, hasn't spent any time in the burbs of Detroit.
By all means, do whatever you want. And fortunately enough people have been posting in this thread who have demonstrated a much firmer grounding in reality and will not be following your example.Stevie-Ray said:...When he tries to sue me for "assault and battery" or "barring his exit" even though he was attempting to make off with my property, I'll deal with the idiots in court. Personally, I'm sick to death of simply "letting criminals go."....
stevie ray said:But, what if you confront the guy with a gun and he calls your bluff?
With a jury of my peers, of course.How would one "deal with the idiots in court"?.
That would change when you come home, notice the lights are on in the garage, and figuring you left them on after finishing with the tractor, walk in and find yourself face-to-face with somebody making off with your valuables. I suppose most of you here would say, "Oh my God, the lights are on! I need to call the police so they can clear my garage!" Or better yet, "Here, let me get the door for you!"2. If you come home and someone has broken into your house/attached garage in your absence, that particular law doesn't offer any protection if you decide to go in after them because the house wasn't occupied when the break-in occurred.
Seriously? Texas has taken it to the criminals and the authorities are agreeing. This isn't the law everywhere, but should be. We would find a lot less criminal activity. Just a bit: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9613/criminals-beware-texas-homeowners-shooting-intruders/What do you know about "how Texas deals with intruders"?
Where does it say I don't care? I don't care that YOU don't care, to be sure, but your passivity, that you cherish so much, IS contributing to higher criminal activity and higher insurance rates.So we really don't care that you don't care, and your insouciance doesn't contribute to the discussion.
This is so idiotic, it doesn't even deserve a response, but since you're among the holier-than-thous, I'll bite. So there is only two outcomes possible. I end the guy and spend my life savings on my defense, or he kicks my ass, because virtually everybody can kick my ass. Brilliant. Nobody has ever foiled a crime without taking a life or getting their ass kicked. I learn something new everyday.Depending on whether you pull the trigger or not, you're about to get either an ass-whipping or an extremely expensive legal lesson on why you were stupid to bluff with a gun.
Just for accuracy, you will not have a "jury of your peers". That was an old English concept, and it does not apply here. You are entitled to a fair and impartial jury.With a jury of my peers, of course.
Do you have a legal basis for that opinion?That [the house wasn't occupied when the break-in occurred] would change when you come home,... walk in and find yourself face-to-face with somebody ....
Yes, most of us would call the police. Most of us realize that it would be extremely foolish to enter a building if one suspected that there could be a violent criminal inside.I suppose most of you here would say, "Oh my God, the lights are on! I need to call the police so they can clear my garage!" Or better yet, "Here, let me get the door for you!"
Simple anecdotes are meaningless in discussing any serious subject, but when one reads an editorial such as the one cited that starts with a mention of the Second Amendment, meanders from that into some examples involving use of force laws, mis-states the substance of the Castle doctrine in Texas, and would try to make one believe that a police comment about whether one will be charged has any legal meaning, one should know to put it down and ignore it without wasting time on it.Seriously? Texas has taken it to the criminals and the authorities are agreeing. This isn't the law everywhere, but should be. We would find a lot less criminal activity. Just a bit: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9613/cr...ing-intruders/
It does apply here-it's called semantics. Have you ever been part of a jury selection?Just for accuracy, you will not have a "jury of your peers". That was an old English concept, and it does not apply here. You are entitled to a fair and impartial jury.
Yes, in my state, it's called Stand Your Ground. You have a right to be in your garage, the criminal you happened upon (again, reflecting my hypothetical above), does not. You need only to read the latest edition of NRA's The Armed Citizen for a prime example in Florida, where a man came home to find 2 criminals inside. He killed 1 and injured one. In my case above, I didn't even mention taking a life.Do you have a legal basis for that opinion?
Note: "occupied" means different things in different states.
Read it again. Where did I say I suspected there could be a violent criminal inside? In fact I said quite the opposite. Do you clear your house when you come home, check for damage, see that everything is the same as when you left? I do, as long as I'm going to be gone for even a few hours. If I suspected someone was in there, I would simply call the police. Simple as that. Don't try to make it something it's not. Yet, just because you don't suspect it, doesn't mean they are not there, or haven't been there. And don't make me bring up those instances-everyone should know about them, by now. But, I'm certainly not calling the police each and every time I come home.Yes, most of us would call the police. Most of us realize that it would be extremely foolish to enter a building if one suspected that there could be a violent criminal inside.
Ignorant twaddle.Stevie-Ray said:It does apply here-it's called semantics. Have you ever been part of a jury selection?Just for accuracy, you will not have a "jury of your peers". That was an old English concept, and it does not apply here. You are entitled to a fair and impartial jury.
Stevie-Ray said:...in my state, it's called Stand Your Ground.....