ohio self defense laws

G

gunslinger555

New member
ohio self defense laws need to be changed

Jim Petro Attorney General of ohio in the pamphlet ohio's concealed carry law

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.
Whether this affirmative defense applies to the situation or
whether it will likely succeed against criminal charges depends
heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation.
The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant must
prove three conditions to establish that he acted in defense of
himself or another.
Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for
creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor
or initiator. However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant
cannot point to other unrelated situations where the victim was the
aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the
situation at hand.
If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch,
attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most
likely in this situation, you cannot legitimately claim self-defense
nor would you likely succeed in proving your case.
If you have no means to escape the other person’s attack and
you reasonably, honestly believe that you are about to be killed or
receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to use deadly force if
that is the only way for you to escape that danger.
19
Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a
real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily
harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape
that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to
protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is
serious.
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or
jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any
weapon the victim had, and how he used it against the defendant.
Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle do not meet the legal
definition of serious. In court cases, rape has been determined to
be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious
bodily harm may also result from being struck with an object
that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.
Important is the defendant’s belief that he is in immediate
danger. The circumstances and conditions of the situation or
confrontation must cause the defendant to reasonably and honestly
believe that he is about to be killed or receive great bodily harm.
In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judge or
jury will envision themselves in the defendant’s “shoes” and
consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status,
and knowledge as well as the victim’s actions and words. The
victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone,
regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm
(“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly
force. If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or
using less than deadly force, he must use those means.
Whether the defendant or the victim was under the influence
of drugs or alcohol will also be considered.
Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or
avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving
or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the
confrontation. If the person retreats and the other continues to
20
fight, the person who left the confrontation may be later justified in
using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of selfdefense
existed, and even if he was honestly mistaken about the
existence of immediate danger.
In Ohio, there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home.
There is no duty to retreat if there is no manner by which you can
retreat safely. However, being in one’s own home is not a license
to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is
attacked in his own home, without fault of his own, may stand his
ground and use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly
believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily
harm or death. If the person does not have this belief or he created
the confrontation, he cannot use deadly force and must leave the
situation, even if he is in his own home.
Defense of Others
A person may defend another only if the protected person
would have had the right to use self-defense. Under Ohio law, a
person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,
just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any
more force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm
threatened.
A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect
another, has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that
the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily
harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the
person from that danger. Furthermore, the defendant must also
show that the protected person was not at fault for creating the
situation and did not have a duty to leave or avoid the situation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
part 2

WARNING:
The law specifically discourages citizens from taking
matters into their own hands and acting as law enforcement
agents. This is true even if the person thinks he is performing a
good deed by protecting someone or helping law enforcement.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a person risks criminal
charges if he interferes in a struggle and protects the person who
21
was at fault, even if he mistakenly believed that person did not
create the situation.
In other words, if you misinterpret a situation and interfere,
you may face criminal charges because your use of deadly force
is not justified. If you do not know all the facts and interfere,
you will not be justified to use force. It does not matter that you
mistakenly believed another was in danger and not at fault.
Of greater concern than risking criminal charges is the fact
that you may be putting yourself and others in danger. If you
use your handgun to interfere in a situation, and an officer
arrives on the scene, the officer will not be able to tell if you are
the criminal or if you are the Good Samaritan.
Ohio law does not encourage vigilantism. A license to
carry a concealed handgun does not deputize you as a law
enforcement agent. Officers are trained to protect members of
the community, handle all types of situations and enforce the
law. Do not allow the privilege to carry a concealed handgun
give you a false sense of security or empowerment. Let law
enforcement officers do their job. If you want to be a Good
Samaritan, call the police.
Conclusion: Self-Defense Issues
If the defendant fails to prove any one of the three conditions
for self-defense or defense of another, he fails to justify his use of
deadly force. If convicted, an individual will be sentenced accordingly.
Defense of Property
There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or
death in order to use deadly force. Protecting property alone does
not allow for the use of deadly force. Therefore, a property owner
may use reasonable, but not deadly, force when he honestly believes
that the force will protect his property from harm.
22
If a person’s property is being attacked or threatened, he may
not use deadly force unless he reasonably believes it was the only
way to protect himself or another from being killed or receiving
serious bodily harm.
Deadly force can never be used to protect property only.
Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter
where the threat to the property occurs.
Civil Liability
Even if the situation does not lead to criminal charges or result
in a criminal conviction, the accused may still face civil liability.
The victim or his survivors could sue the accused for the harm
from his use of deadly force. A “wrongful death” lawsuit is a
common legal action for money damages brought by the survivors
of a victim who was killed. The victim or his survivors must prove
that it is more probable than not that the defendant’s use of force
was inappropriate or excessive and it caused the victim’s injuries
or death. If this is proven, the victim or his survivors may be
entitled to recover money from the defendant as punishment and/or
compensation, even if the victim was breaking the law at the time
force was used against him.
The law requires that the force used must be reasonable and
necessary to prevent the danger. So even if the victim was wrong
and caused the situation, if the force was inappropriate or excessive
in a particular situation, the defendant risks criminal and/or
civil punishment.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that a defendant may
assert against civil liability. The defendant must prove that he
reasonably believed that he or another was in immediate danger of
serious bodily harm or death, and he could only prevent the harm
by deadly force.
23
Conclusion
Carrying a concealed handgun is a privilege that does not bring
with it the right to use deadly force. The appropriateness of using
any force depends on the specific facts of each and every situation.
Click to expand...

to read the whole thing go to http://find.ohio.gov/search?q=firea...ov&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=ohio_gov and click on the first result
 
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO article 1 section4

§ 4. Bearing arms; standing armies; subordination of military power.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Okay then...

You've posted a bunch of information.

It's a good reference.

What's the point? Is there something you'd like to discuss?

:confused:

-Dave
 
Anyone who takes the CCL course here has gone over all of this material in excruciating detail, especially if the CCL instructor is a law enforcement trainer. This thread is not really needed.:)
 
it helps me, as i'll be living there for the next three years, but not be changing my residency, so it's FL permit all the way.

it's also just sad to read that and hear how pro-criminal the laws are written today. i understand they need to discourage would-be cowboys, but i'm sorry, you come through my window at night for the TV, you should expect to get shot. it always sickens me when i have to hear again and again about how the criminal's activity does nothing to diminish his family's right to recover "damages" from the real victim who stood up in the face of wrong.
 
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.

That part is troubling because it appears to be directly contrary to the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" clause.
The way the above is worded, it looks like you are assumed to have acted unnecessarilly (criminally) UNLESS you can prove that you didn't.

Ohio even says that a home invasion is NOT a reason to use deadly force which is interesting because an officer at the last CCW class I was at said right out that home invaders KNOW you are home and you must immediately assume that they are there to kill you and rape your wife and daughter... and the homeowners should act accordingly, both quickly and lethally.
I guess I'd rather be a victim of a home invasion in Texas than in Ohio since I don't first have to offer them tea and cookies to see if they are dangerous. I get to properly assume they are intent on harming my home's occupants and end the conflict immediately.
Maybe home invaders in Ohio are just friendlier than home invaders in Texas? That's all I can figger'.

Carter
 
kelly j +1 to that in my opinion the castle doctrine is more important than ccw. dont get me wrong ccw is very important im just saying its second to good self defense laws.
 
That part is troubling because it appears to be directly contrary to the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" clause.
The way the above is worded, it looks like you are assumed to have acted unnecessarilly (criminally) UNLESS you can prove that you didn't.
Click to expand...
Well... not exactly. You're still innocent until proven guilty. Say someone is killed in your house. A 'normal' defense only has to raise 'reasonable doubt' that it was you. Other people were in your house, no witnesses to the event, no fingerprints, etc etc etc. The burden is on the prosecution to prove it was you. In an affirmative defense, you are admitting that you did it, but claiming it was justified. Now the burden is on you to prove it. Otherwise the prosecution would have to prove that you were NOT justified. You can't prove a negative.

As somebody else mentioned, Castle Doctrine law is the way around this. If somebody's in your house uninvited and illegally, they are assumed to be a danger.
 
The way the above is worded, it looks like you are assumed to have acted unnecessarilly (criminally) UNLESS you can prove that you didn't.
Click to expand...
In most states, self defense is an affirmative defense, as described above. In an affirmative defense, you are saying "Yes I did it but it is ok because it was self defense." To use this defense, you are admitting that you used deadly force -- which is what you are accused of. So you then have to show it was self defense.

That's common law in most states -- it's not unique to Ohio.
 
gs555 - The answer to your question is in your first post.

In Ohio, there is no duty to retreat from one’s own home.
There is no duty to retreat if there is no manner by which you can
retreat safely. However, being in one’s own home is not a license
to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is
attacked in his own home, without fault of his own, may stand his
ground and use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly
believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily
harm or death. If the person does not have this belief or he created
the confrontation, he cannot use deadly force and must leave the
situation, even if he is in his own home.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top