Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

'Stand Your Ground' Legislation in Ohio

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion 'Stand Your Ground' Legislation in Ohio

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #90935

    News
    Participant

    Ohio might pursue ‘Stand Your Ground’ legislation

    Mar. 27, 2012

    Jessica Alaimo and Russ Zimmer

    CentralOhio.com

    Ohio has a scaled down version of “Stand Your Ground” — the Castle Doctrine — that allows a private citizen to use deadly force if the threat occurs while inside their home or vehicle.

    Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said the organization has had discussions with Republican lawmakers about introducing a Stand Your Ground law in Ohio but was unable to say who would sponsor it.

    READ MORE: http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20120327/NEWS01/203270305/Ohio-might-pursue-Stand-Your-Ground-legislation?odyssey=nav%7Chead

    #489469

    DavidF
    Participant

    Oh yay! Another solution to a nonexistent problem that opens a bigger can of worms.

    Ohio – Making last years dumb ass ideas, this years legislation!

    #489470

    joev
    Participant

    I actually like that gun nuts are pursuing ever-nuttier legislation. It proves to the normal non-paranoid people that they really are nuts.

    #489471

    News
    Participant

    Effort Under Way In Ohio To Enact ‘Stand Your Ground Law’
    Tuesday March 27, 2012 5:43 PM

    COLUMBUS, Ohio – Gun rights advocates were lobbying Ohio lawmakers Tuesday to enact the controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. The law, which 24 states currently have, would allow people to use deadly force if threatened outside their homes. Ohio law allows residents to use deadly force within their homes if they believe an intruder is going to seriously hurt them, Aker reported. The law is called the Castle Doctrine.

    READ MORE: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/03/27/columbus-effort-underway-to-enact-stand-your-ground-law.html

    #489472

    geoyui
    Participant

    Looks like it’s moving forward.

    Expanded Stand Your Ground Proposed In Ohio[/url]

    The proposed law, House Bill 203 gives people the right to use deadly force without first trying to escape or retreat anywhere they are legally allowed to be. 22 states already have a stand your ground style law on the books, now Ohio could be the 23rd.

    A Columbus attorney who specializes in 2nd Amendment laws said the present self defense law for using deadly force has three conditions:

    1. You must not have picked a fight.
    2. There is a real belief the you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that the use of deadly force was the only way to escape danger.
    3. If you can escape or retreat, you must do so. The new proposed law could do away with the language referring to the duty to retreat.

    #489473

    Schoolboy
    Participant

    I’m not entirely sure what this new law really does except for to open up the “retreat” language. As of right now, you can attempt to “retreat” and if unable to do so can then use deadly force.

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but this is how I always understood it to be.

    #489474

    Coy
    Participant

    Sounds like all the law does is remove the retreat language. So, if someone is attacking you you have the right to immediately use deadly force, which I can see an argument for.

    However, when I lived in Colorado years ago a guy shot his neighbors dog, then when the neighbor walked up to his front door to confront him, the same guy shot through the screen door and got off on a “stand your ground” type defense, so it’s obviously a mixed bag, and how it plays out racially is another problem all together.

    #489475

    joev
    Participant

    I don’t think we need all these extra laws.

    #489476
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Coy said:
    Sounds like all the law does is remove the retreat language. So, if someone is attacking you you have the right to immediately use deadly force, which I can see an argument for.

    However, when I lived in Colorado years ago a guy shot his neighbors dog, then when the neighbor walked up to his front door to confront him, the same guy shot through the screen door and got off on a “stand your ground” type defense, so it’s obviously a mixed bag, and how it plays out racially is another problem all together.

    Sure.

    As I understand it though the situation you describe wouldn’t apply here, since the confrontation was initiated by the claimant.

    #489477

    gramarye
    Participant

    Coy said:
    However, when I lived in Colorado years ago a guy shot his neighbors dog, then when the neighbor walked up to his front door to confront him, the same guy shot through the screen door and got off on a “stand your ground” type defense, so it’s obviously a mixed bag, and how it plays out racially is another problem all together.

    A stand-your-ground law has never been necessary in your own home, though, so the presence or absence of such a law would make no difference in this case. This case would fall back on traditional self-defense principles: Did the shooter have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm? I’d obviously want to hear his side of the story–that’s why we have courts, after all–but if it turns out that the man just shot someone who was coming, unarmed, up the sidewalk in broad daylight, then I’d have a hard time suggesting that the shooter held a reasonable fear of great bodily harm (and even if I couldn’t get myself all the way to beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction, the shooter would have to have a really convincing counterstory to get me to find him not liable civilly for wrongful death in such a circumstance). If it was night and the first man (the one whose dog got shot) appeared to be about to take justice into his own hands, though, that could be a different story.

    In either event, though, SYG would be a non-issue there.

    I think SYG is eminently sensible and I’m surprised that so few jurisdictions have adopted it. Then again, I also don’t think it’s invoked all that often; it’s rare that someone loses a self-defense plea solely because they had a way to retreat and didn’t take it in a duty-to-retreat state. After all, the path of retreat has to be clear and safe. The duty to retreat does not mean that you must endanger yourself further by trying all possible paths of retreat, no matter how dangerous, until you are literally backed into a corner.

    #489478

    kit444
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    I think SYG is eminently sensible and I’m surprised that so few jurisdictions have adopted it. Then again, I also don’t think it’s invoked all that often; it’s rare that someone loses a self-defense plea solely because they had a way to retreat and didn’t take it in a duty-to-retreat state. After all, the path of retreat has to be clear and safe. The duty to retreat does not mean that you must endanger yourself further by trying all possible paths of retreat, no matter how dangerous, until you are literally backed into a corner.

    If the retreat element is so loosely interpreted, what’s the justification for removing it?

    #489479

    Coy
    Participant

    It was the Castle Law (Make my day law) in Colorado, not exactly a SYG law, but similar.
    Used completely incorrectly in this case, which was about ten years ago in Greeley, though I couldn’t find any articles…

    Edit: here’s something. As I recall, the shooter was a mess after this cause he realized he overreacted.
    In Ohio, pretty sure someone has to physically be in the house to shoot them.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1017542/posts

    #489480
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    The duty to retreat does not mean that you must endanger yourself further by trying all possible paths of retreat, no matter how dangerous, until you are literally backed into a corner.

    Would that prosecutors all interpreted things the same way and that there was never bias in their interpretation.

    #489481

    gramarye
    Participant

    kit444 said:
    If the retreat element is so loosely interpreted, what’s the justification for removing it?

    If the retreat element is so loosely interpreted, what’s the justification for having it?

    The justification for removing it is simple: You shouldn’t have the question of whether you walk free or get 20+ years in prison decided by how safe or unsafe your path of retreat was, as second-guessed by people who weren’t there.

    #489482

    kit444
    Participant

    gramarye said:
    If the retreat element is so loosely interpreted, what’s the justification for having it?

    The justification for removing it is simple: You shouldn’t have the question of whether you walk free or get 20+ years in prison decided by how safe or unsafe your path of retreat was, as second-guessed by people who weren’t there.

    All questions of fact are subject to the judgment of people who weren’t there. It doesn’t justify the removal of the element. The second element is more subjective. Should we remove that one as well?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 107 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE