The debate over Stand Your Ground laws in Ohio

[2timer]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...nse-law-doesnt-need-fixing-officials-say.html

The Zimmerman case brought a lot of attention to these controversial laws. While I think debating them is good for us all, I think there is some fundamental dishonesty going in the debate.

On one side we have the NRA saying the current law says you have a duty to retreat even if someon points a gun to your head. On the other side, the cops and Franklin County Prosecutor say no: the duty to retreat applies only if the person is unarmed.

Does the law really say you have a duty to retreat if you are threatened by an armed assailant? Or is it possible that the NRA is twisting the facts on this? It sounds like someone might be building a straw man when it comes to the issues.

Linda Walker, vice president of the Buckeye Firearms Association and a member of the NRA board of directors, described a scenario where a mom in a grocery-store parking lot, after putting her baby in the car, turns around and has a gun put to her head.

“Does she have a duty to retreat? In Ohio right now, she does,” Walker said. “I don’t know a mother who would run away from her babies.”

But Michael Weinman, retired Colombus police officer, and Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecutor, both says that isn't the case.

“The duty to retreat says that if the other person isn’t armed, you need to back away and let the situation cool down..." Michael Weinman, retired officer.

“Certainly if someone is holding a gun at my head and I have access to a weapon, it’s neither reasonable nor practical to say I have to retreat before I use deadly force,” O’Brien said. “That’s not a realistic scenario.”

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Doppel]

What are your thoughts on this?

Linda Walker is obviously a f**king liar. Even in states without stand your ground a citizen is allowed to use deadly force to protect the life of a third party if it is reasonable to think deadly force is necessary to protect that third party from serious harm.

I think a practical approach to life is that SYG is rather silly. Really at the end of the day it's saying that your pride--"Screw you, I ain't goin' nowhere!"--is more important than somebody's life, even if they are a lowlife scum. It invites legal problems.

I fully endorse a person's right to concealed carry, BTW.

 

[boomerang]

I would need to read the law to give my opinion.

 

[Nebor]

I would need to read the law to give my opinion.

And one would think there would be a pretty black and white opinion.

A little research shows that there is no "stand your ground law" in Ohio, but one is up for a vote. Right now, you have a duty to retreat in public if at all possible. Castle doctrine is in effect for home & car though.

Also, the OP doesn't know what a strawman is.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Does the law really say you have a duty to retreat if you are threatened by an armed assailant? Or is it possible that the NRA is twisting the facts on this? It sounds like someone might be building a straw man when it comes to the issues.

But Michael Weinman, retired Colombus police officer, and Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecutor, both says that isn't the case.

What are your thoughts on this?

In my (NC) we now have a SYG law, but prior to that we had the old standard self-defense law. I happened to have received my concealed carry permit under the old law. From my understanding of the law taught during the class you absolutely had a requirement to retreat, whether or not the assailant was armed or not was irrelevant.

However, my understanding is that under the scenario of the mother and baby retreat is not possible and so would not be required. Specifically, the mother after have placed her child in the car (buckled in the baby restraint seat) could not reasonably be expected to retreat with her baby. I.e., "retreat" means not only you but also your family members who are with you.

Fern

 

[rudeguy]

I would need to read the law to give my opinion.

My guess is there is no law.

Until you have a law that says you don't have to retreat (SYG), its implied that you must retreat. At least that is how it was explained to me.

Reasonable guess that I am wrong though 🙂

 

[2timer]

In my (NC) we now have a SYG law, but prior to that we had the old standard self-defense law. I happened to have received my concealed carry permit under the old law. From my understanding of the law taught during the class you absolutely had a requirement to retreat, whether or not the assailant was armed or not was irrelevant.

However, my understanding is that under the scenario of the mother and baby retreat is not possible and so would not be required. Specifically, the mother after have placed her child in the car (buckled in the baby restraint seat) could not reasonably be expected to retreat with her baby. I.e., "retreat" means not only you but also your family members who are with you.

Fern

Thanks for providing that distinction. Pretty clear how a mother with baby couldn't retreat. It's funny she would use the wrong scenario as an example of a "duty to retreat."

But your post brings up an interesting question, which is - if a fully grown man has a gun pointed at his head, and he is alone, does he have a duty to retreat in Ohio? Could he face prosecution if he fires a weapon on an attacker who brandishes, but doesn't use, his weapon?

The Franklin County Prosecutor makes it sound like that isn't the case, but let us suppose it is a legal gray area. I would fully support legislation which makes it clearly legal to use lethal force against someone who is brandishing a weapon. What I don't support is a SYG law where it's legal to use lethal force because your "space" is threatened.

Also, the OP doesn't know what a strawman is.

If you're too lazy to even explain why you made this assumption, I could care less.

 

[ThinClient]

Castle doctrine is in effect for home & car though.

I feel safe driving around in my castle.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

But your post brings up an interesting question, which is - if a fully grown man has a gun pointed at his head, and he is alone, does he have a duty to retreat in Ohio?

TBH, I don't know. I'm assuming the assailant is quite close, if so my guess would be that there is no duty to retreat because a gun a "ranged weapon" and therefore (safe) retreat is not possible. You'd just get shot in the back.

Could he face prosecution if he fires a weapon on an attacker who brandishes, but doesn't use, his weapon?

No. The law isn't that you can only return gunfire. Brandishing a gun is certainly sufficient to meet the requirement of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Not to mention how useless and impractical it is to require a person to wait and see if the assailant is actually going to shoot them. (You're well past an "imminent" threat at that point.)

Fern

 

[2timer]

The law isn't that you can only return gunfire. Brandishing a gun is certainly sufficient to meet the requirement of a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Not to mention how useless and impractical it is to require a person to wait and see if the assailant is actually going to shoot them. (You're well past an "imminent" threat at that point.)

Fern

If that's the case, I'm fairly certain that the NRA is building a straw man against the current self defense laws. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to change the laws as they are now.

 

[Nebor]

If that's the case, I'm fairly certain that the NRA is building a straw man against the current self defense laws. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to change the laws as they are now.

 

[Drako]

The "Duty to retreat" language always makes me cringe.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Nothing like having to run away from someone rather than protecting yourself.

Guess you have to hope the person with the gun slips and falls in shit trail you leave behind before they can take a shot at you.

 

[2timer]

Funny. You've claimed it twice but haven't provided any evidence. Still waiting on you to explain how your assumption is true. Based on your lazy responses thus far, I'm not expecting a whole lot.

 

[2timer]

Nothing like having to run away from someone rather than protecting yourself.

What are you running away from?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Duty to retreat = Must run away

 

[Nebor]

Funny. You've claimed it twice but haven't provided any evidence. Still waiting on you to explain how your assumption is true. Based on your lazy responses thus far, I'm not expecting a whole lot.

:biggrin:

 

[2timer]

I would need to read the law to give my opinion.

From an Ohio criminal law blog: http://ohiocrimlawblog.com/tag/duty-to-retreat/

Currently, the law in Ohio requires a defendant asserting self-defense to prove three things by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not):

1)That the defendant “was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the “affray.” Basically, you can’t start the fight and then claim self-defense when the other guy ends up dead. A defendant must not have been responsible for causing the altercation in order to validly assert self-defense.

(2) That the defendant “had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and the only means to escape such danger was in the use of such force.” The defendant must have reasonably believed, under the circumstances as he knew them, that he was about to suffer serious physical harm or death, and the use of force was necessary to thwart that imminent harm.
(3) That the defendant “did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Astute readers will notice that this third prong is somewhat duplicative to the second prong, because if the only means to escape the danger was the use of force, then obviously the defendant could not otherwise avoid the danger. But let’s not get too bogged down in that minutia. Appellate courts craft “tests” all the time that seem nonsensical.

The blogger says that the third part of the law is a "test" crafted by appellate courts and is mainly minutiae. It's not really a sticking point in a criminal court if the first two requirements are met, it's more for legal reasons in the rare case of a legitimate appeal.

Thoughts?

 

[2timer]

:biggrin:

Lol. Seriously, that's it? I guess you are joking. 😀

 

[Fern]

From an Ohio criminal law blog: http://ohiocrimlawblog.com/tag/duty-to-retreat/

The blogger says that the third part of the law is a "test" crafted by appellate courts and is mainly minutiae. It's not really a sticking point in a criminal court if the first two requirements are met, it's more for legal reasons in the rare case of a legitimate appeal.

Thoughts?

(2) That the defendant “had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and the only means to escape such danger was in the use of such force.”

The 3rd prong is there to reinforce that the intent of the legislature in drafting the 2nd is clear: You have a duty to retreat if possible/reasonable.

In my experience, such redundancy in statutes is assiduously avoided and only exists when sharp clarity of legislative intent is needed/desired. I.e., they're serious about one's duty to retreat.

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Thoughts?

That's not the actual wording of the law, that's the wording of a blogger interpreting the law. Your issue is that you feel the NRA director is incorrect and I have seen nothing to refute her belief.

The article quotes a retired police officer and the Prosecutor for one county in Ohio. We don't know their political leanings and based upon their statements I would say there is a likelihood that they oppose changing the law as it currently reads. One quote from the bad, bad NRA person and two from 'law enforcement officials'. It's pretty clear what is going on.

One of the things I was taught in the CPL class I attended this past September is that the job of Prosecutor is an elected position. Meaning it is a partisan position and the person that attains that office carries that baggage with them. If I were to shoot dead an individual that accosted me on the street (and did everything "by the book" as it pertains to a CPL holder) I could still be charged at the discretion of the prosecutor. Every county has a prosecutor so the opinion of one as it pertains to this proposed change in the law has little meaning.

 

[cubby1223]

What are your thoughts on this?

Question, have you *yet* come to grips that the police dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to not pursue? Or do you still believe that fabrication?

In other words, what makes you think you have the right to comment on any of these subjects when you have shown a great neglect in refusing to even look at the few pieces of hard evidence there are? What makes you think you have any shred of credibility to present an argument? To present it accurately?

 

[2timer]

That's not the actual wording of the law, that's the wording of a blogger interpreting the law. Your issue is that you feel the NRA director is incorrect and I have seen nothing to refute her belief.

The article quotes a retired police officer and the Prosecutor for one county in Ohio. We don't know their political leanings and based upon their statements I would say there is a likelihood that they oppose changing the law as it currently reads. One quote from the bad, bad NRA person and two from 'law enforcement officials'. It's pretty clear what is going on.

One of the things I was taught in the CPL class I attended this past September is that the job of Prosecutor is an elected position. Meaning it is a partisan position and the person that attains that office carries that baggage with them. If I were to shoot dead an individual that accosted me on the street (and did everything "by the book" as it pertains to a CPL holder) I could still be charged at the discretion of the prosecutor. Every county has a prosecutor so the opinion of one as it pertains to this proposed change in the law has little meaning.

I quoted two professional people very familiar with the laws in Ohio. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worth far less than a prosecutor, unless you have a law degree and your own practice in Ohio. If you think that the Franklin County Prosecutor is "wrong" in his interpretation of Ohio's self defense laws, then you should offer some clear sources yourself to back that up. Otherwise you're just speculating and that's not hardly a valid argument.

For example, you speculate that if you shoot someone dead who "accosts" you, you could still face criminal charges. Obviously you'd have to be more specific - was this person armed? Everyone familiar with the laws says that if they are armed, you wouldn't be charged. That's the whole point of the post. The NRA woman says that even if they were armed, you'd still be charged. Now speculations aside, who do you think is correct.

 

[2timer]

Question, have you *yet* come to grips that the police dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to not pursue? Or do you still believe that fabrication?

I don't know why you keep wanting to discuss the specifics of the Zimmerman case. I've gotten over it and have no desire to discuss it any further.

 

[boomerang]

I quoted two professional people very familiar with the laws in Ohio. As far as I'm concerned, your opinion is worth far less than a prosecutor, unless you have a law degree and your own practice in Ohio. If you think that the Franklin County Prosecutor is "wrong" in his interpretation of Ohio's self defense laws, then you should offer some clear sources yourself to back that up. Otherwise you're just speculating and that's not hardly a valid argument.

For example, you speculate that if you shoot someone dead who "accosts" you, you could still face criminal charges. Obviously you'd have to be more specific - was this person armed? Everyone familiar with the laws says that if they are armed, you wouldn't be charged. That's the whole point of the post. The NRA woman says that even if they were armed, you'd still be charged. Now speculations aside, who do you think is correct.

If you were just looking for reinforcement of the opinion you formed you should have said so. BTW, whatever you've got going on that is clouding your judgment to this degree should be dealt with. Your original post was barely coherent and you're now showing pretty much a complete inability to comprehend written language. Yes, it is that obvious.