Self defense laws may change in Ohio

[Squisher]

This will surely will cause most law abiding people to invent reasons to lure people into their homes to kill them.

Its a natural progression, when sitting around the house, bored, my mind often wanders into thoughts of random violence.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Squisher
This will surely will cause most law abiding people to invent reasons to lure people into their homes to kill them.

Its a natural progression, when sitting around the house, bored, my mind often wanders into thoughts of random violence.

only to baskeball playing kids at 10am 😀

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Squisher
This will surely will cause most law abiding people to invent reasons to lure people into their homes to kill them.

Its a natural progression, when sitting around the house, bored, my mind often wanders into thoughts of random violence.

Yup. When they passed the castle laws in my state cable guys and plumbers started getting picked off like crazy.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: 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.

It should be as simple as "He broke in" -- that act is threatening enough.

 

[LtPage1]

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

 

[GenHoth]

Breaking and entering IS justification for your actions. The state has to prove its not self defense...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

They're in the house. In many states that is all the justification you need. Thankfully many other states are moving this direction.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

so a person wh is defending there family needs to then go to court and risk being put in jail? when evidance shows they were acting in self defence.

what about a women who is being raped who manages to stab the guy and kill him. should she then have to risk going to jail for being raped?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

You might want to do the same. Start with "affirmative defense."

 

[anonymousleaf]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

You might want to do the same. Start with "affirmative defense."

You may also wish to do the same. Start with this sentence:

In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

This sentence is applicable to Ohio's new law. So perhaps instead of arguing irrelevancies you should research the law.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: anonymousleaf

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

You might want to do the same. Start with "affirmative defense."

You may also wish to do the same. Start with this sentence:

In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

This sentence is applicable to Ohio's new law. So perhaps instead of arguing irrelevancies you should research the law.

haha ouch.

 

[Peelback79]

I hope I never have to shoot someone. All life is sacred. However, the burden should definetely rest on the state's shoulders to investigate. As an Ohio'n I hope we end up adopting the Castle Laws.
I have several firearms with which to dispatch someone. I don't sit around hoping and praying for the day someone breaks in so I can smite the villian with a few rounds of justice and get my own article in the NRA monthly. I pray for the opposite. The bible is my first line of defense but I want to live in country where laws protect the LAW ABIDING and INNOCENT. The 'victimization' of America somewhat worries me. I don't like hearing about how someone is not responsible for what they did because of this happenend in their life or they didn't have a good upbringing. Criminals have rights, but I believe the innocent individual's rights should always be trump.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: Peelback79
I hope I never have to shoot someone. All life is sacred. However, the burden should definetely rest on the state's shoulders to investigate. As an Ohio'n I hope we end up adopting the Castle Laws.
I have several firearms with which to dispatch someone. I don't sit around hoping and praying for the day someone breaks in so I can smite the villian with a few rounds of justice and get my own article in the NRA monthly. I pray for the opposite. The bible is my first line of defense but I want to live in country where laws protect the LAW ABIDING and INNOCENT. The 'victimization' of America somewhat worries me. I don't like hearing about how someone is not responsible for what they did because of this happenend in their life or they didn't have a good upbringing. Criminals have rights, but I believe the innocent individual's rights should always be trump.

:thumbsup:

All life is not sacred though. Once someone breaks into my home, their life becomes worth absolutely zero.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: anonymousleaf

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

You might want to do the same. Start with "affirmative defense."

You may also wish to do the same. Start with this sentence:

In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

This sentence is applicable to Ohio's new law. So perhaps instead of arguing irrelevancies you should research the law.

If you read the post I was replying to, you'll see why your post is irrelevant. I bolded the key word for you. Nice try though.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Wrong. Even in a public shooting, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty. So, your wrong by all accounts, so please learn something about the topic and American law principles before posting again in this thread.

You might want to do the same. Start with "affirmative defense."

I am not a lawyer and I might now have a clear understanding of "affirmative defense". With that said, from my interpretation isn't that when a person actually commits a crime (shooting someone who he had no legal right to shoot) but in the situation he reasonably thought he was stopping a serious crime?

Example. Man is raping woman. Woman pulls out a knife and starts stabbing man. Another guy walks up to the scene and only sees a woman stabbing a man. Man #2 shoots the woman thinking he is stopping a murder.

The woman was protecting herself in a reasonably and lawful way and therefor man #2 had no legal right to shoot her. He is technically guilty of murder. However, since man #2 acted in a way most reasonable people would (view the woman as the attacker) the defense argues that he should be exonerated but they also bear the burden of proof.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Is "proove" the same as prove, and proof? My dictionary does not list "Proove" as a real word.

 

[OS]

the UK can tell you all about no self defense;

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1212418336

 

[91TTZ]

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 still do the same thing with the current law. Your example doesn't work.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

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.

QFT. The burden of proof should always be on the killer. If you take a life, you should absolutely be held responsible for justifying your actions.

Being an intruder in someone else's house is that justification.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: spidey07
Here in KY you don't need anything. If they are in your home you are free to kill them to protect life and property.

Self defense isn't even needed, they entered your home you can kill them no matter if they are armed or not.

You need to qualify that. You can't kill the pizza guy for coming into your house after you ask him to.

yeah but if I put a WTB: gun/ax/bat post on craigslist, don't offer to deliver it to me.

 

[SparkyJJO]

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.

x2

I've heard too many stories of people who shoot in self-defense and end up getting nailed for manslaughter/murder/or the intruder survives the shot and sues them and somehow wins or something totally retarded like that.