Ohio CCW and self defence

G

garryc

New member
I thought I'd put in a little FYI about Ohio's CCW bill, this from the CCW pamplet;

Self-Defense
Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused
person may claim that use of deadly force was justified to excuse
his or her actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense
or the defense of another is an affirmative defense that an accused
may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide
offense. The term “affirmative defense” means the accused, not
the prosecutor, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words,
the defendant must prove that it is more probable than not that his
use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the
situation.

Doesn't "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE" fly in the face of the constitution?
 
It seems to me that if you are innocent until proven guilty it would be on the procecutor to prove a wrongful act. Of course I often confuse logic and law
 
Garry, . . . I think you may have the understanding of the current law confused with one of the two it replaced. As it was explained to me:

One of the replaced laws said if you were charged with carrying a concealed weapon illegally, . . . the burden of proof was on you to prove that the extenuating circumstances were sufficient to warrant your carrying a weapon. You were basically guilty until proved innocent.

The new law still forces the burden of proof onto the prosecutor, . . . he must convince 12 jurors that your use of deadly force was indeed not called for, . . . un-necessary, . . . in excess of the required force to placate the situation, . . . etc. You on the other hand, fully admit to the use of the firearm, . . . and you admit so under the affirmative provision that you were doing so to save your life/someone else's life/grievous bodily harm, etc.

The affirmative part is that you indeed own up to shooting the bg. You only have to convince one of the 12 jurors that what you did was a prudent, wise decision, . . . based upon your personal fear for your own life, limb, or that of someone near to you. Ideally, . . . you convince all 12, . . . but to stay free, one will do.

In all honesty, . . . if I could make some sweeping changes to the Ohio CCW law, . . . I would do it in a NY heartbeat. Buttttttttt, . . . bad as it is, . . . it is still better than the old sharp stick I used to carry.:D

May God bless,
Dwight
 
Our law is better than a sharp stick, granted, but I wonder what would have happened if the Hamilton county case had gone the distance. In a best case, well almost best, Gov. Taft would not have said he'd veto the first versions of the bill. I don't thank him, or the NRA for that matter, for this goofy law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top