Castle doctrine question

[Gaspode]

I had an interesting question come up in my CHL class on Sunday and wasn't sure of the answer. Well, not 100% sure anyway.

We know that castle doctrine applies to not only your home but also to your vehicle or a vehicle of a direct family member, I.e. Wife, husband, daughter, son. Meaning there's no duty to retreat if you're in said vehicle.

But the question came up about rental cars. I'm sure I've read somewhere that castle doctrine does apply but I couldn't find it while on break.

So yay or nay? Does castle doctrine apply while your In a vehicle you happen to be renting?

[JediSkipdogg]

I had an interesting question come up in my CHL class on Sunday and wasn't sure of the answer. Well, not 100% sure anyway.

We know that castle doctrine applies to not only your home but also to your vehicle or a vehicle of a direct family member, I.e. Wife, husband, daughter, son. Meaning there's no duty to retreat if you're in said vehicle.

But the question came up about rental cars. I'm sure I've read somewhere that castle doctrine does apply but I couldn't find it while on break.

So yay or nay? Does castle doctrine apply while your In a vehicle you happen to be renting?

This one is debated and not proven in court yet. I believe a few years back (and hopefully someone can find it) there was a court case in where a guy was driving his girlfriends car and he tried to claim castle. They lived together and therefore many other statutes in the ORC would apply but he was denied "castle" even though it was "loaned" to him according to his lawyer.

The state pretty much argued that it has to be your vehicle or an immediate family member owns. There are no other exceptions. So using the state's argument, which they won in the prior case, a rental car would not be covered.

[pirateguy191]

The state pretty much argued that it has to be your vehicle or an immediate family member owns. There are no other exceptions. So using the state's argument, which they won in the prior case, a rental car would not be covered.

I'm here to say that's pretty much asinine. If I borrow my neighbors car and get car jacked, I can't claim Castle Doctrine?

[TJW815]

The state pretty much argued that it has to be your vehicle or an immediate family member owns. There are no other exceptions. So using the state's argument, which they won in the prior case, a rental car would not be covered.

I'm here to say that's pretty much asinine. If I borrow my neighbors car and get car jacked, I can't claim Castle Doctrine?

I'm with you on this one.

[JediSkipdogg]

The state pretty much argued that it has to be your vehicle or an immediate family member owns. There are no other exceptions. So using the state's argument, which they won in the prior case, a rental car would not be covered.

I'm here to say that's pretty much asinine. If I borrow my neighbors car and get car jacked, I can't claim Castle Doctrine?

Correct. You have to retreat....

2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.
(A) As used in this section, "residence" and "vehicle" have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.

(B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person's residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.

The related court case is found here: State v. Edwards, 2013-Ohio-239

The short is they pretty much said "person's vehicle" is not a vehicle under your control but one that you have legal ownership of.

[Sevens]

I was under the impression that it had in fact been settled with regards to a rented motel... why not a rented car then?

[JediSkipdogg]

I was under the impression that it had in fact been settled with regards to a rented motel... why not a rented car then?

Well, they define in 2901.05 what a residence is and a motel can fall under that...

(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it and that is designed to be occupied by people lodging in the building or conveyance at night, regardless of whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or is mobile or immobile. As used in this division, a building or conveyance includes, but is not limited to, an attached porch, and a building or conveyance with a roof over it includes, but is not limited to, a tent.

(3) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as a guest.

They define a vehicle as well in the same section as...

(4) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

The vehicle section doesn't establish rental (aka temporary) or not. So one has to look at the closest court case of State v. Edwards and think how is a rental different than the vehicle of a live in girlfriend? How about not even live in girlfriend and just roommate of the same or opposite sex? The court said it wasn't his vehicle at that time so I would take it they would rule the same way with regards to a rental. It would definitely be a drawn out court case and probably cost a fortune to defend so I hope I'm not the court case. But I will not let this law stop me from defending myself in any vehicle. I'll just face the consequences after the fact.

[Bama.45]

This is why I would love to see some form of stand your ground law passed.

[DontTreadOnMe]

The related court case is found here: State v. Edwards, 2013-Ohio-239

The short is they pretty much said "person's vehicle" is not a vehicle under your control but one that you have legal ownership of.

The appeals court never ruled on that at all.

Because the self-defense elements are cumulative, we do not, as Edwards would have us, reach the issue of whether R.C. 2901.09 operated to exempt Edwards from any duty to retreat. The trial court concluded that self-defense did not excuse Edwards’s criminal conduct, because the court did not, under the circumstances, find credible Edwards’s claim that he had acted upon a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

The moral of this story is that "castle doctrine" isn't a free pass to go to your gun. Your actions will be reviewed by others (LEO, prosecutor, jury) and if they don't believe your actions were reasonable, self defense is off the table, castle or not.

[Qfac]

The whole rental car issues would be a good fight I think. Unlike borrowing your friend or roommates car, when you rent a vehicle you are financial liable for the car and any damage done to it or damage caused by it. By this account I would say you could make an argument that you are in temporary ownership, there are legal binding Aggreements in place binding both parties. I would summit that if this would not hold up in a case then it is not a long stretch to say a leased vehicle is not yours and you would not be afforded the benefit of Castle Doctrine there either. After all you really only rented it for 24 months.......

Just my 2 cents

[JediSkipdogg]

The whole rental car issues would be a good fight I think. Unlike borrowing your friend or roommates car, when you rent a vehicle you are financial liable for the car and any damage done to it or damage caused by it.

And the same is true when you borrow your buddy or roommates car. The only difference is many times insurance will extend to cover other drivers. However that is not the case as someone on here recently found out when they let their own daughter drive their vehicle. I can't recall the specifics, but they were denied as being covered.

By this account I would say you could make an argument that you are in temporary ownership, there are legal binding Aggreements in place binding both parties. I would summit that if this would not hold up in a case then it is not a long stretch to say a leased vehicle is not yours and you would not be afforded the benefit of Castle Doctrine there either. After all you really only rented it for 24 months.......

Just my 2 cents

I agree with you there, it's just up to how one interprets the ORC and how hard the prosecutor is out to get you. I would say in 85 of Ohio's counties, it wouldn't matter. Those other 3, I hope one has a good lawyer. The problem is, a loss in one of those 3 can set a ripple throughout the entire state.

My opinion, it doesn't really matter. If I can drive away, I'm driving away. If there's not enough time or some obstacle preventing me from driving away, then there is no way for me to retreat and it doesn't really become an issue irregardless of who's car I'm driving.

[someguy]

Exactly why I keep an instant pop-up tent with me at all times. Whenever danger approaches I deploy it, jump inside and start screaming Castle Doctrine.

[Klingon00]

Exactly why I keep an instant pop-up tent with me at all times. Whenever danger approaches I deploy it, jump inside and start screaming Castle Doctrine.

I like you.

[Sevens]

For what it's worth...

a tent is a darn fine brass catcher for those among us that handload.

[carmen fovozzo]

I'm trying to understand the mental giants that came up with this law and then the metal giants that voted it in...this is beyond logic....what there saying is your life is a piece of crap if your riding or driving someone else's car..don't know why I am surprised at this nonsense...