Self defense laws may change in Ohio

[DisgruntledVirus]

Currently the CCW/self defense law says that if you are in your home and somebody breaks in you have to proove that you shot a person in self defense. A law is currently going through legislation to change that to the prosecution has to proove you did not shoot in self defense (i.e. proove you were not in dange). A second part will change the CCW law for cars as well (currently you must have it locked up AFAIK).

So should the burden of proove be on the prosecution to proove you did NOT act in self defense, or should it be on you to proove you DID act in self defense?

 

[amddude]

Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

 

[Injury]

Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

 

[Specop 007]

I could never figure out why is someone is in your house the burden or proof is on you.

It should be as simple as "He broke in and threatened me" and you should be clear.

 

[kedlav]

I'm in NE Ohio, this will be a nice change.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

:disgust:

Lets make up the most fictitious bullshit in the world and use that as the basis for our reasoning.

Hey you know, asteriods could fall from the sky and kill us so I propose we make a law requiring people to live in shelters!!

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: amddude
Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

This is what a trial and investigation is for.

If you've already shot someone then it's quite hard to deny that you shot them, you know? You're guilty of shooting them whether you were having an afternoon tea or whether they were robbing you while armed with weapons.

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

:disgust:

Lets make up the most fictitious bullshit in the world and use that as the basis for our reasoning.

Hey you know, asteriods could fall from the sky and kill us so I propose we make a law requiring people to live in shelters!!

Where in the legal system are you automatically presumed guilty for anything? I can't think of an example, so why would we start that now?

Ohio doesn't have gun registration btw.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

Yeah, it would be terrible if the state had to do anything more than a shoddy investigation in order to bring convictions.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

:disgust:

Lets make up the most fictitious bullshit in the world and use that as the basis for our reasoning.

Hey you know, asteriods could fall from the sky and kill us so I propose we make a law requiring people to live in shelters!!

Where in the legal system are you automatically presumed guilty for anything? I can't think of an example, so why would we start that now?

Ohio doesn't have gun registration btw.

Excuse Mr Burglar...I know this my house and all, but can you put down your gun so you can sign this affadavit confirming that you are tresspassing and burglarizing my house before I shoot you? Thanks!!!

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude
Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

This is what a trial and investigation is for.

If you've already shot someone then it's quite hard to deny that you shot them, you know? You're guilty of shooting them whether you were having an afternoon tea or whether they were robbing you while armed with weapons.

Ok let's play it out though. The cops show up, see you've shot someone, and they do an INVESTIGATION. Were there signs of forced entry? A struggle? Were there previously burglary or assault attempts? Etc. Ok, yes, could someone theoretically get away with murder, sure! How is this different from any other type of crime? I don't think this really makes murder any easier or more convenient.

Not to mention, with murder there is usually MOTIVE. Motive can be proven pretty easy. If it was a self-defense situation, that's probably not gonna be involved.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude
Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

This is what a trial and investigation is for.

If you've already shot someone then it's quite hard to deny that you shot them, you know? You're guilty of shooting them whether you were having an afternoon tea or whether they were robbing you while armed with weapons.

It is patently ridiculous that every person in a pretty clear case of self defense should have to stand trial. Unless there is some significant initial evidence that it was staged the prosecutor should keep their nose out of it. The burden of proof is on the state.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

Where did I say anything about luring a BURGLAR in to a house... it could be your best friend for all I care.

Either way, the problem is still that you must be protecting yourself from personal harm and stealing your TV or something has not been considered a threat of personal danger.

I'm not saying anything about gun control or anything here, but I am saying that if you shoot someone, it's going to be pretty obvious from the scene whether you should have been worried about personal safety or not.

You're not doing crap to discourage people from breaking and entering here. If you want to do something about burglary, then change the laws to better define "personal danger" as someone forcing entry in to your house, rather than just bodily harm.

 

[amddude]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

Where did I say anything about luring a BURGLAR in to a house... it could be your best friend for all I care.

Either way, the problem is still that you must be protecting yourself from personal harm and stealing your TV or something has not been considered a threat of personal danger.

I'm not saying anything about gun control or anything here, but I am saying that if you shoot someone, it's going to be pretty obvious from the scene whether you should have been worried about personal safety or not.

You're not doing crap to discourage people from breaking and entering here. If you want to do something about burglary, then change the laws to better define "personal danger" as someone forcing entry in to your house, rather than just bodily harm.

What is the alternative? Anybody caught with a smoking gun and a dead body automatically gets third degree murder unless they can prove otherwise?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude
Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

This is what a trial and investigation is for.

If you've already shot someone then it's quite hard to deny that you shot them, you know? You're guilty of shooting them whether you were having an afternoon tea or whether they were robbing you while armed with weapons.

It is patently ridiculous that every person in a pretty clear case of self defense should have to stand trial. Unless there is some significant initial evidence that it was staged the prosecutor should keep their nose out of it. The burden of proof is on the state.

Every case in Ohio that I've heard on the news where it was crystal clear that a person was defending themselves didn't even result in the shooter being charged. I don't believe the state should have to run an investigation before charging a person if they shoot someone without clearly being in danger.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

Where did I say anything about luring a BURGLAR in to a house... it could be your best friend for all I care.

Either way, the problem is still that you must be protecting yourself from personal harm and stealing your TV or something has not been considered a threat of personal danger.

I'm not saying anything about gun control or anything here, but I am saying that if you shoot someone, it's going to be pretty obvious from the scene whether you should have been worried about personal safety or not.

You're not doing crap to discourage people from breaking and entering here. If you want to do something about burglary, then change the laws to better define "personal danger" as someone forcing entry in to your house, rather than just bodily harm.

What is the alternative? Anybody caught with a smoking gun and a dead body automatically gets third degree murder unless they can prove otherwise?

Unless they can prove they were in danger? Yeah. That's exactly what I think. If it's obvious that they were in harm's way then there shouldn't be charges, as in, the person they shot is carrying a weapon or something. I don't think that shooting someone in the back as they flee your property is a justifiable murder.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Injury
I don't believe the state should have to run an investigation before charging a person if they shoot someone without clearly being in danger.

Yeah to hell with due process.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

Where did I say anything about luring a BURGLAR in to a house... it could be your best friend for all I care.

Either way, the problem is still that you must be protecting yourself from personal harm and stealing your TV or something has not been considered a threat of personal danger.

I'm not saying anything about gun control or anything here, but I am saying that if you shoot someone, it's going to be pretty obvious from the scene whether you should have been worried about personal safety or not.

You're not doing crap to discourage people from breaking and entering here. If you want to do something about burglary, then change the laws to better define "personal danger" as someone forcing entry in to your house, rather than just bodily harm.

What is the alternative? Anybody caught with a smoking gun and a dead body automatically gets third degree murder unless they can prove otherwise?

Unless they can prove they were in danger? Yeah. That's exactly what I think. If it's obvious that they were in harm's way then there shouldn't be charges, as in, the person they shot is carrying a weapon or something. I don't think that shooting someone in the back as they flee your property is a justifiable murder.

thats insane.

its not up to the persont o prove anything. its up to the state to prove it. if they can't htey have a duty to not take it to trail.

in any situation they are going to investigate it. charges and trail should only be when they (the cops) have actual proof.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Prosecution

 

[Linflas]

The burden of proof should always be on the prosecution.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude
Well if you are innocent until proven guilty, it would make the most sense for the prosecutor to prove you did not act in self-defense.

This is what a trial and investigation is for.

If you've already shot someone then it's quite hard to deny that you shot them, you know? You're guilty of shooting them whether you were having an afternoon tea or whether they were robbing you while armed with weapons.

It is patently ridiculous that every person in a pretty clear case of self defense should have to stand trial. Unless there is some significant initial evidence that it was staged the prosecutor should keep their nose out of it. The burden of proof is on the state.

Every case in Ohio that I've heard on the news where it was crystal clear that a person was defending themselves didn't even result in the shooter being charged. I don't believe the state should have to run an investigation before charging a person if they shoot someone without clearly being in danger.

I believe the US Supreme court disagrees with you, thankfully.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: amddude

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

no, what they are really trying to do is give criminals more of reason not to steal your shit.

If you don't want to get shot or killed, then don't break into people's houses. Problem solved.

you actually think people LURE burglars into their houses just so they can shoot them??? how much tinfoil are you wearing today???

Where did I say anything about luring a BURGLAR in to a house... it could be your best friend for all I care.

Either way, the problem is still that you must be protecting yourself from personal harm and stealing your TV or something has not been considered a threat of personal danger.

I'm not saying anything about gun control or anything here, but I am saying that if you shoot someone, it's going to be pretty obvious from the scene whether you should have been worried about personal safety or not.

You're not doing crap to discourage people from breaking and entering here. If you want to do something about burglary, then change the laws to better define "personal danger" as someone forcing entry in to your house, rather than just bodily harm.

What is the alternative? Anybody caught with a smoking gun and a dead body automatically gets third degree murder unless they can prove otherwise?

Unless they can prove they were in danger? Yeah. That's exactly what I think. If it's obvious that they were in harm's way then there shouldn't be charges, as in, the person they shot is carrying a weapon or something. I don't think that shooting someone in the back as they flee your property is a justifiable murder.

thats insane.

its not up to the persont o prove anything. its up to the state to prove it. if they can't htey have a duty to not take it to trail.

in any situation they are going to investigate it. charges and trail should only be when they (the cops) have actual proof.

Okay, so why is it that in any other situation, a person holding a gun and a dead body would get them thrown in a cruiser and taken downtown with bail set somewhere in the hundred thousand dollar range, but suddenly it's completely backwards if it happens in your house or if you claim they were trying to hurt you?

What it boils down to for me is that at what point does a cop just take your name and your statement and tell you they'll call you if they figure anything out?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Injury

Okay, so why is it that in any other situation, a person holding a gun and a dead body would get them thrown in a cruiser and taken downtown with bail set somewhere in the hundred thousand dollar range, but suddenly it's completely backwards if it happens in your house or if you claim they were trying to hurt you?

Are you retarded?

You don't see the difference of someone being gunned down in the street versus in someone else's house?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, so what we're trying to do here is make the state spend more money on more thorough investigations so people can try and find excuses to shoot other people. All you'd have to do is lure someone into your home, shoot them, and slip and unregistered gun into their hand and you could potentially get away with murder.

You can do that with a knife too :roll: