Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
NO.....Chuck wrote:Let me see if I have this right, Carmen.
If you are in your driveway, being confronted by an angry person on a four wheeler, you would retreat to the house and call 911
But if you are in the grocery store and see a guy shopping with a long gun strapped to his back, and not bothering anybody, you'll draw and hold at low ready.
Do I have that right?
Shot the ATV driver... If you read my past post Jim that is exactly what I said I would do....jabeatty wrote:That works if Officer Friendly routinely circles your block. If he's 15 minutes (or a couple hours) away, I'm not going inside.carmen fovozzo wrote:How about retreating into your house and calling 911 ?Mrs. Daspirate wrote:alright, I'll bite - if a complete stranger rolled up into my driveway and started yelling about me breaking into other homes and refusing to leave.... yeah, I'd be reaching for a gun, if I didn't already have it. And if it was Joe confronting said stranger, I'd have our shotgun ready, in addition to whatever Joe had on him at the time.
Man sounds nuts, drugged up, or drunk. None of which I would want to deal with unarmed if he was unwilling to leave peacefully. It doesn't say he even so much as aimed the shotgun, just that he armed himself against a stranger acting crazy and aggressive.
I am VERY surprised that nobody has come out and stated that they'd have shot the ATV rider when he drew. Why not? I sure hope I would have - you can't have a much more direct and blatant threat to your life than that.
I missed it the first time, and the second read just confused me further.carmen fovozzo wrote: Shot the ATV driver... If you read my past post Jim that is exactly what I said I would do....
Jim, I find it very hard that you could be confused at what I posted.....I was confused posting it...jabeatty wrote:I missed it the first time, and the second read just confused me further.carmen fovozzo wrote: Shot the ATV driver... If you read my past post Jim that is exactly what I said I would do....
It sounded to me like you were saying you'd shoot him, but you also said (in the very next sentence) that you'd retreat and call 911.
Thanks, Carmen - I needed a laugh this morning!carmen fovozzo wrote:Jim, I find it very hard that you could be confused at what I posted.....I was confused posting it...jabeatty wrote:I missed it the first time, and the second read just confused me further.carmen fovozzo wrote: Shot the ATV driver... If you read my past post Jim that is exactly what I said I would do....
It sounded to me like you were saying you'd shoot him, but you also said (in the very next sentence) that you'd retreat and call 911.
Got it...carmen fovozzo wrote:No gun pointed at me retreat.
Gun pointed at me no retreat...
Good analysis.bigdan390 wrote:Mrs. D, please understand that I completely agree with you in principle. However, remember the 3 legs of claiming self-defense in Ohio. Also remember that self-defense is an affirmative defenseMrs. Daspirate wrote:alright, I'll bite - if a complete stranger rolled up into my driveway and started yelling about me breaking into other homes and refusing to leave.... yeah, I'd be reaching for a gun, if I didn't already have it. And if it was Joe confronting said stranger, I'd have our shotgun ready, in addition to whatever Joe had on him at the time.
Man sounds nuts, drugged up, or drunk. None of which I would want to deal with unarmed if he was unwilling to leave peacefully. It doesn't say he even so much as aimed the shotgun, just that he armed himself against a stranger acting crazy and aggressive.
From the Attorney General's Concealed Carry Handbook (emp. added):
The burden of proof rests with the homeowner, though he does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but to a preponderance of the evidence, all three of the following:The term “affirmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor,
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense
or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must prove
that it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary
due to the circumstances of the situation.Now the homeowner does not appear to be the initial aggressor. However likely (in a legal sense) escalated the situation by getting the shotgun. The only caveat if the guy on the ATV drew his gun first. And the homeowner can prove it.Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.
However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to other
unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the
focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.
If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or
drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,
you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in
proving your affirmative defense.
It continues on:Again, arguable but still in question in this case. Again the burden of proof is on the defendant.Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief
that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that
his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear in
mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily
harm or death. The key word is “serious.”
And lastly:Now one might argue Castle here, and one might be successful. However one might not be successful. Castle likely would not apply in the driveway, nor on other parts of the property not in the home.Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid the
danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his
intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.
Even if Castle did apply there are some prosecutors and sadly even judges (and yes Judge Matia I mean you) that just plain ignore it. See First Castle Doctrine Appellate Case-Cuyahoga County 8th District.
Now I am not saying that the homeowner was wrong. But I think I could successfully argue that of the three legs of self-defense, the homeowner did not meet even a single one. That's not shaky ground, that's quicksand.
I agree that both are idiots.