This is the same type of scenerio the gun banners would like to see play out in the United States, where self-defense is as punishable of a crime as home invasion or robbery. We must be ever vigilant to be sure such injustice does not happen here. A person defending his or her home is a hero, not a criminal.
Great and patriotic words. I wish I were the author of the last two sentences. Well-said Dan!
Don't blame me, I voted for McCain
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry
יזכר לא עד פעם
God Have Mercy on the BG who comes through my door because being we have to possible way,WE WILL NOT RETREAT!
There is only one way in and one way out of my house because the hallway door is boarded shut to make a private entrance for the upstair apt. So Other than to go out the frontroom window we have no other way.
A nine millemeter with 25 rounds (three mags and one in the pipe) methinks will make a difference.
So Stuff That Kanada!
Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation. . James Madison.
At this point, from everything I can find on the subject, we have NO requirement to retreat from within our own home, even right now.
Laws like Florida's No Retreat law extend this outside of the home, but we do not have anything like that hear now.
Still, unless someone can show me something to prove me wrong, we have NO DUTY to RETREAT from our HOMES (the Castle doctrine).
As far as the story, what else would you expect from Canada. The refused medals for their snipers from the US for doing a good job of sniping. That, and the fact they have to out-Brit the Brits and they are standing with one foot on a banana peel and the other one on a block of ice!
Some states have duty to retreat INSIDE the home. One classic one oft quoted by RKBA people involved a lady who was chased all over her house by a burgler, finally she got to a cap and ball revolver in the basement and shot him to death, she was charged because they felt she could have escaped from the basement and fled outside her own home to escape. Memory tells me this was in new hampshire
I don't feel sorry for the goblin who got shot, but I have a hard time getting worked up over the supposedly unfair treatment of the homeowner--According to the local news report I found, he shot at the goblins when they were in their car leaving. I think even in states where "stand your ground" has passed, in most cases you'll get in trouble for shooting at goblins who are driving away.
I don't think being outraged over this one helps our cause.
willbird wrote:One classic one oft quoted by RKBA people involved a lady who was chased all over her house by a burgler, finally she got to a cap and ball revolver in the basement and shot him to death, she was charged because they felt she could have escaped from the basement and fled outside her own home to escape.
Bill
In this case, we need laws that will protect us from liberal legislators then.
Don't blame me, I voted for McCain
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry
יזכר לא עד פעם
sevesteen wrote:I don't think being outraged over this one helps our cause.
Agreed sevesteen, and that is a great point. In the particular situation, where the threat has passed, the homeowner would be acting injudiciously and should not be an example for us to follow.
However, I believe that Dan’s point was to the greater issue. There is a disturbing trend all over the world to make self-defense illegal, and the Liberals here, would do it if they could get away with it.
In those countries where self-defense is illegal, the criminal is always portrayed as the poor innocent victim who is just trying to get a date, or maybe just make a living, and the only criminal in those stories is the law-abiding homeowner. The criminals seem to have all the rights, and the law-abiding citizen is always an [expletive deleted -- TR] with a gun and is always the Bad Guy.
Kind of calling good evil and evil good as the Bible puts it.
Don't blame me, I voted for McCain
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry
יזכר לא עד פעם
If I understand Ohio law correctly. if I encounter a burglar leaving my house, he can smile sweetly, wave bye bye, and walk away. Nothing I can legally do to stop him
Of course I could yell "get down on the ground now, with your hands above your head, you piece of meat, or I'll [threat of damage that his head will incur from a projectile]".
I know the law prevents me from making good on that threat. He doesn't know that
Never submit, comply or follow the commands of an attacker...
At that point the invaders left... but as they were going, a shot was fired at their vehicle and hit the driver... The culprits drove to Russell to complain to the RCMP.
It certainly seems as if the shooter was wrong for firing at a fleeing vehicle. I'd love to see a copy of the complaint form the robbers filled out.
Harvey Joseph Young, 28, is charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, discharge firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of an offence, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized and breach of undertaking.
So not only are there laws against "unauthorized possession of a firearm" but also "possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized." God bless Canadian legislators.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine
In such a "worst-case scenario" case of living in a country where the bad guys can tattle on you for having a gun and repelling their imminent threat with it, then make sure their buddies in the joint (where at least 1 of them went in this case) know they are snitches. Snitches are about a half-a-peg above perps who hurt kids in the joint. Put the word out on the street that "Ace" and "Slim" are known snitches. They called the RCMP on another "crook" with a gun. They helped the "pigs" collar a fellow "bad guy" for their own gain. Guerilla tactics. It sucks to say but if that's all you can do to get back at those bastards in that situation, then do it.
Ohio
2305.40. Immunity of owner, lessee or renter of real property as to self-
defense or defense of others.
(A) As used in this section:
(1) "Firearm" has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised
Code.
(2) "Tort action" means a civil action for damages for injury, death, or loss to
person or property other than a civil action for damages for a breach of
contract or another agreement between persons.
(3) "Vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 4501.01 of the Revised
Code.
(B) (1) The owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the
owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who resides on the property is not liable
in damages to a trespasser on the property, to a member of the family of
the trespasser, or to any other person in a tort action for injury, death, or
loss to person or property of the trespasser that allegedly is caused by the
owner, lessee, renter, or family member if, at the time the injury, death, or
loss to person or property allegedly is caused, all of the following apply:
(a) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member is inside a building or other
structure on the property that is maintained as a permanent or temporary
dwelling;
(b) The trespasser has made, is making, or is attempting to make an
unlawful entry into the building or other structure described in division
(B)(1)(a) of this section;
(c) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member uses reasonably necessary
force to repel the trespasser from the building or other structure described
in division (B)(1)(a) of this section or to prevent the trespasser from making
the unlawful entry into that building or other structure.
(2) For purposes of the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this section,
reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from a building or other
structure that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling or to
prevent a trespasser from making an unlawful entry into a building or other
structure of that nature may include the taking of or attempting to take the
trespasser's life, or causing or attempting to cause physical harm or serious
physical harm to the person of the trespasser, if the owner, lessee, or renter
of real property or a member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who
resides on the property has a reasonable good faith belief that the owner,
lessee, or renter or a member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's family is
in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm to person and that the
only means to escape from the imminent danger is to use deadly force or
other force that likely will cause physical harm or serious physical harm to
the person of the trespasser, even if the owner, lessee, renter, or family
member is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger of
death or serious physical harm to person.
(3) In order to qualify for the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this
section, an owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the
owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who resides on the property is not
required to retreat from a building or other structure that is maintained as a
permanent or temporary dwelling prior to using reasonably necessary force
to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure or to prevent a
trespasser from making an unlawful entry into the building or other
structure.
(C) The owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the
owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who resides on the property is not liable
in damages to a trespasser on the property, to a member of the family of
the trespasser, or to any other person in a tort action for injury, death, or
loss to person or property of the trespasser that allegedly is caused by the
owner, lessee, renter, or family member under circumstances not covered
by division (B)(1) of this section if, at the time the injury, death, or loss to
person or property allegedly is caused, none of the following applies:
(1) The injury, death, or loss to person or property is caused by a physical
assault of the owner, lessee, renter, or family member upon the trespasser
other than in self-defense or defense of a third person.
(2) Self-defense or defense of a third person is not involved, and the injury,
death, or loss to person or property is caused by a vehicle driven or
otherwise set in motion, a firearm shot, or any other item of tangible
personal property held, driven, set in motion, projected, or thrown by the
owner, lessee, renter, or family member with the intent to cause injury,
death, or loss to person or property of the trespasser or with the intent to
cause the trespasser to believe that the owner, lessee, renter, or family
member would cause injury, death, or loss to person or property of the
trespasser.
(3) Under circumstances not described in division (C)(1) or (2) of this
section, self-defense or defense of a third person is not involved, and the
owner, lessee, renter, or family member intends to create a risk of injury,
death, or loss to person or property of any trespasser by direct or indirect
means, including, but not limited to, the use of spring guns, traps, or other
dangerous instrumentalities.
(D) (1) This section does not create a new cause of action or substantive
legal right against the owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member
of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who resides on the property.
(2) This section does not affect any civil liability under another section of the
Revised Code or the common law of this state of an owner, lessee, or
renter of real property or a member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's
family who resides on the property with respect to individuals other than
trespassers, including, but not limited to, civil liability to invitees or
licensees.
(3) This section does not affect any immunities from or defenses to civil
liability established by another section of the Revised Code or available at
common law to which the owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a
member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who resides on the
property may be entitled with respect to individuals other than trespassers,
including, but not limited to, immunities from or defenses to civil liability to
invitees or licensees.
(4) This section does not affect any criminal liability that the owner, lessee,
or renter of real property or a member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's
family who resides on the property may have for injury, death, or loss to
person or property of a trespasser, invitee, or licensee on the property.
(5) This section does not affect any immunities from or defenses to civil
liability established by another section of the Revised Code or available at
common law to which an individual other than the owner, lessee, or renter
of real property or a member of the owner's, lessee's, or renter's family who
resides on the property may be entitled in connection with injury, death, or
loss to person or property of a trespasser on real property owned, leased,
or rented by another person, including, but not limited to, self-defense or
defense of third persons.
- (B)(2) substantiates that deadly force can be used, and (B)(3) states that
retreat isn't a necessary precurser if you're inside your home. (Which, of
course, implies that retreat *is* necessary if you're not inside your home,
which is what all the recent "castle doctrine" laws are addressing.)
Zen wrote:If I understand Ohio law correctly. if I encounter a burglar leaving my house, he can smile sweetly, wave bye bye, and walk away. Nothing I can legally do to stop him
Of course I could yell "get down on the ground now, with your hands above your head, you piece of meat, or I'll [threat of damage that his head will incur from a projectile]".
I know the law prevents me from making good on that threat. He doesn't know that
Actually, you can arrest him for committing a felony, and use "reasonable force" to effect that arrest. You can't just shoot him, but it is perfectly legal for you to hold him for the police. The Gov't discourages people from going out looking for people to arrest (and rightly so), but any time you witness a felony you may lawfully arrest the felon, using "reasonable force". I most cases, it is probably unwise to do so, but it is legal. In the scenario in your post, I would detain the criminal for the police.
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve disorder".
Mayor Richard Daley, 1968
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I say or write is legal advice.
Don't bother looking in the Revised Code for laws regarding self-defense; it's all in case law. The only easy reference I know of is what's in the AG's CCW booklet.
This is the same type of scenerio the gun banners would like to see play out in the United States, where self-defense is as punishable of a crime as home invasion or robbery. We must be ever vigilant to be sure such injustice does not happen here. A person defending his or her home is a hero, not a criminal.
Great and patriotic words. I wish I were the author of the last two sentences. Well-said Dan!
Tried to click on the link.
Goes from "opening page" to "finding page" to "can't find page" to done with a blank page in the brouser!
Well-said Dan!
