Will Ohio ever become a STAND YOUR GROUND state?

[Chris Dorr]

I'm Chris Dorr, so Chuck and anyone else here from OFCC can feel free to boot me from this thread because I sure as hell don't mean to hijack this forum, because it isn't mine.

But I'll stand here and defend the work that Ohio Gun Owners does day in and day out, all day long.

Make all the claims you want, Mr. Nameless "Lookingatagunscam." You're the scam, and you're the one trying to run interference for the people we've had to whack the he!! out of.

It's no secret that my brothers and I work for organizations that advocate for the 2A. It's no secret that I was born in Iowa and got started defending gun rights there.

It's also no secret that OGO and the orgs that my brothers direct fundraise, and we do it without apology. We do it because we spend money like banshees at election time, during the legislative season, and anywhere else we can to effectively influence the debate about gun rights and gun-control. The 2A sure as hell deserves a rabid-dog defense instead of a pansy-a**, limp-wristed approach that'll get steamrolled by the left.

Got a problem with that? Go pound sand.

My brothers and I don't apologize for going after people in Iowa, like Speaker Pro-Tem Matt {inappropriate language}, for killing Constitutional Carry, or for gutting criminal immunity out of SYG in committee. And this isn't a pro-life forum, but we also never apologized for going after {inappropriate language} IN HIS DISTRICT to show people that that sonofab!+CH voted for taxpayer funded abortions, either. That's why Iowa Firearms Coalition and Matt {inappropriate language} hate us.

And we sure don't apologize for going after people like Senator Rod Skoe or Lyle Koenen up in Minnesota, either, who were NRA endorsed and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus endorsed but who voted to kill Constitutional Carry on the MN Senate floor on April 23, 2015, when Senator Branden Petersen forced a vote for us. That's why Bryan Fester Strawser and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus hate us, because they wanted to run cover for those aholes. If it were up to them, the DFL would hold the MN Senate right now and UBC's and Red Flags would SWEEP into law immediately.

And stop trying to allude that we've somehow linked or named OFCC in our organizational docs. Anyone with half a brain can go online and look for themselves to see that what you're saying about OGO is a baldfaced lie.

So keep looking into us, nameless nobody. My only apology is that we don't raise more money so that we can get MORE nasty with the politicians who refuse to advance Ohio gun laws.

[Javelin Man]

I'm Chris Dorr, so Chuck and anyone else here from OFCC can feel free to boot me from this thread because I sure as hell don't mean to hijack this forum, because it isn't mine.

But I'll stand here and defend the work that Ohio Gun Owners does day in and day out, all day long.

So keep looking into us, nameless nobody. My only apology is that we don't raise more money so that we can get MORE nasty with the politicians who refuse to advance Ohio gun laws.

So why fracture our already divided gun rights organizations into yet another one to bicker and fight amongst each other instead of joining forces with an established one, one that already has the ears of legislatures and can work with parliament, er, government to create, fix or eliminate gun-unfriendly laws?

[Chuck]

Anybody have any questions for Chris?

[pirateguy191]

OFCC and OGO seem to be working well together.

[sd790]

OFCC and OGO seem to be working well together.

I fully support all organizations which actually work to secure our gun rights. They are far better off when they work together. They all get a chunk of my hard-earned money.

Chris Door, thank you for your efforts with OGO. You got another donation from me just a few weeks ago.
Chuck, Jeff, Doug, and all of the other awesome OFCC coords and board members deserve our support with time and money. I give you both as I can.
Buckeye Firearms Associations does great work too. They deserve our support and they have mine.
Second Amendment Foundation needs our help. They are making real progress at the federal level. I just sent them another donation.
GOA also gets my full support every year. They are awesome and they deserve my recent donation.

*The NRA can pound sand right now, though. That might be another thread in itself.

If you actually want gun rights organizations to be able to get things done on your behalf, do NOT just wait for them to do it. Help them. Turn off the tv and give them time and give them some of that money that they desparately need.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Anybody have any questions for Chris?

Ok I'll bite. Your group is called "Ohio Gun Owners". Your 'Our Staff' page only lists yourself, which talks about your "pro-gun grassroots mobilization, Chris has helped organizations in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin." Is this organization (as far as the operations) just you, and are you actually living in Ohio now?

Also, your website has a link for 'Ohio Gun Laws' but all it does is bring up the PDF from Gary Slider's Handgunlaw.us site and I don't see any credit or other attribution there. Do you have Gary's permission to do this? Even if you do IMO it would be appropriate to provide attribution giving credit to the hard work he's done gathering and updating that data.

[Chris Dorr]

I'm Chris Dorr, so Chuck and anyone else here from OFCC can feel free to boot me from this thread because I sure as hell don't mean to hijack this forum, because it isn't mine.

But I'll stand here and defend the work that Ohio Gun Owners does day in and day out, all day long.

So keep looking into us, nameless nobody. My only apology is that we don't raise more money so that we can get MORE nasty with the politicians who refuse to advance Ohio gun laws.

So why fracture our already divided gun rights organizations into yet another one to bicker and fight amongst each other instead of joining forces with an established one, one that already has the ears of legislatures and can work with parliament, er, government to create, fix or eliminate gun-unfriendly laws?

Javelin Man, I'll answer that. The reason why is simple: because our organization goes about things in a completely different way. We have a different focus than OFCC does, a different method than OFCC does, and sometimes that method can be a little abrasive.

I'll also say that I don't believe that OFCC and OGO are fractured, bickering or fighting with each other. From OGO's perspective, we work well together and we want to keep it that way.

[Chris Dorr]

Anybody have any questions for Chris?

Ok I'll bite. Your group is called "Ohio Gun Owners". Your 'Our Staff' page only lists yourself, which talks about your "pro-gun grassroots mobilization, Chris has helped organizations in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, New Hampshire and Wisconsin." Is this organization (as far as the operations) just you, and are you actually living in Ohio now?

Also, your website has a link for 'Ohio Gun Laws' but all it does is bring up the PDF from Gary Slider's Handgunlaw.us site and I don't see any credit or other attribution there. Do you have Gary's permission to do this? Even if you do IMO it would be appropriate to provide attribution giving credit to the hard work he's done gathering and updating that data.

Because I'm new on this forum, and because I don't intend to hijack it in any way, I don't know what everybody's handles are, so I'll just call you Mr. Gadsden.

The organization is comprised of a board of three people and myself. Pastor Richard Knodel from Mason is our chairman. We have several people that work in our office on an as-need basis, or whenever they can help. We have three people that try to keep up with the FB page, myself included. I live in a little town called Spring Valley, right south of Xenia. I've lived here for almost three years.

As far as that section of the website, well, it was a template website. We just pointed it to Gary's site, because it's probably the best in the country, and it jumps directly to their page, not a pdf we've made.

Didn't make much sense to us to reinvent a beautiful wheel, not to mention that it isn't an area we needed to focus on as a new organization tryin' to grow up into something.

[Bearable]

Does Ohio law require a victim of an attack to attempt to retreat or escape before employing self-defense?

Ohio law does not require retreat or escape in the residence or vehicle, see R.C. §§2901.05 and 2901.09. But, does Ohio statutory law require retreat or escape when the victim is lawfully in a place other than a residence or vehicle? The answer to that question is no. In other words, Ohio law does not require a victim of an attack to retreat or escape before employing self-defense. Generally, self-defense flows from statutory law dealing with murder, assault, rape, kidnapping or robbery. But self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be asserted at the first instant, R.C. §2901.05.

However, what do the courts say, or case law? Well, State v. Wright, 88 NE 3d 487 – Ohio (2017-Ohio-1225): Court of Appeals, 6th Appellate Dist. (2017), stated at paragraph 27 that:

To establish self-defense the defendant must prove (1) that he was not at fault in creating the situation; (2) that he had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was by the use of deadly force; and (3) that he did not violate any duty to escape to avoid the danger. State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 283, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986). “If the defendant fails to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence he has failed to demonstrate that he acted in self-defense.” Id. at 284

The Wright Court says that there are three elements that are required to be met to establish self-defense. It is, however, the third element that is suspect. The third element says the victim “did not violate any duty to escape to avoid the danger” before employing self-defense. This conclusion is not based on an enacted Ohio statutory law. The Wright Court is relying on the Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 283, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986).

What does the Jackson Court say? It says:

This court held in State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 74, 79-80 [12 O.O.3d 84], quoting State v. Melchior (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 15 [10 O.O.3d 8], that "`[t]o establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray ** * [citations omitted]; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force * * *[citations omitted]; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.'" The Peacock and Graham cases state, respectively, that one has no duty to retreat if he is assaulted in his home or business.

The Jackson Court cites State v. Peacock from 1883 and Graham v. State from 1918. The Jackson Court also stated that “The Peacock and Graham cases state, respectively, that one has no duty to retreat if he is assaulted in his home or business.” This is a clear misrepresentation of the two cases. Neither case mentions trespass nor that a victim has a duty to retreat because the victim was trespassing on the assailant’s private property. Nor does either case even mention a duty to retreat or escape before employing self-defense. Where did this idea come from? The Jackson Court relied on State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) which is also a Supreme Court case. The Melchior Court stated at paragraph 21 that:

To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, Stewart v. State (1852), 1 Ohio St. 66, 75; State v. Doty (1916), 94 Ohio St. 258; State v. Morgan (1919), 100 Ohio St. 66, 72; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force, Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163, paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Champion (1924), 109 Ohio St. 281, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio St. 308, 310; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.

In the very next paragraph the Melchior Court stated, “Krista had a right to stand his ground and protect his property. Erwin v. State (1876), 29 Ohio St. 186.” The Erwin case is addressed more fully below.

The Melchior Court’s decision appears to be the first Ohio Supreme Court decision declaring that to claim self-defense “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Citing State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79, in supporting their reasoning. So, what does the Peacock and Graham say.

Peacock is a half-page Ohio Supreme Court decision back in 1883 making a general statement that self-defense is proper when “such means as are necessary to repel the assailant from the house.” Not one word about “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.”

Graham is also an Ohio Supreme Court decision from 1918. The question to the court was, did the alleged victim who claimed self-defense have a duty to escape. The Graham Court stated:

Under the facts detailed, if the defendant did not provoke the assault, but while in the lawful pursuit of his business was suddenly and violently assaulted with a deadly weapon and placed in danger of loss of life or great bodily harm, under the current of modern authority he was not required to retreat.

To support the above finding the Graham Court relied on another Ohio Supreme Court case of Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186, and the United States Supreme Court case of Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895). The Beard Court quoted the Erwin case. The Erwin Court stated:

The law, out of tenderness for human life and the frailties of human nature, will not permit the taking of it to repel a mere trespass, or even to save life where the assault is provoked; but a true man who is without fault is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise maliciously seeks to take his life or do him enormous bodily harm.

The United States Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan, in Beard stated that:

The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury. (my emphasis)

Did you catch that? Even the USSC said you are not obligated to retreat.

The Ohio Supreme Court stated, in Melchior, that “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Is this a mischaracterization of Peacock, Graham and Erwin? The phrase does not say a slayer has a “duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” It says the “slayer must not have violated any duty.” Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, defines “DUTY” as “A human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.”

Since all cases after Melchior conform with Melchior and Melchior relies on 19th. century and three quarters of the 20th. century case holdings, and since Peacock, Graham and Erwin do not require a slayer to retreat or avoid a danger if the slayer was not the aggressor then using self-defense as an affirmative defense is proper and the Castle Doctrine theory plays no part. Which means that the Wright case was wrongly decided because it presumed if you have no duty to retreat in your home then you do have a duty to retreat outside your home, but that is not the law.

One of the earliest cases addressing the duty to retreat is from 1840. That case is State v Noble, 1 Dec. (Re.) 1. The Noble Court stated that “The English doctrine, that a party assaulted must flee as far as he can before he resists, has no foundation in human nature. The true position is this: A sudden quarrel does not justify the intentional killing of the adversary, unless in self-defense.”

This is true today as it was true as far back as 1840 and by implication back to the founding of Ohio. Ohio has never established in statutory law or in case law that retreat is required in a self-defense situation.

This right of self-defense is NOT an extension of the Castle Doctrine. The right to self-defense applies to wherever you have a right to be. In other words, your right to self-defense in only your castle is a red herring. You have had that right forever no matter where lawfully you are.

At the beginning it was stated that Ohio law does not require retreat or escape in the residence or vehicle, see R.C. §§2901.05 and 2901.09. R.C. §2901.05 did not address the right of self -defense until the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St. 2d 103, 351 N.E.2d 88 (1976), held that self-defense was an affirmative defense. It was not until 2008 that no duty to retreat in the home or vehicle appeared in statutory law. And, R.C. §2901.09 also did not appear in statutory law until 2008 declaring “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.” In other words, implying that you have a duty to attempt to retreat or escape before employing the RIGHT of self-defense outside your castle is contrary to case law holdings.

Let’s not forget, Ohio did not have any significant gun control laws until 1974, six years after the federal “Gun Control Act of 1968” went into effect. Both R.C. §2923.11 “Definitions” of firearms and R.C. §2923.12 “Carrying concealed weapons” went into effect in 1974, as well as other laws regulating firearms.

It bears repeating, the Ohio Supreme Court’s statement, in Melchior, that “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger” does not say a slayer has a “duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” It says the “slayer must not have violated any duty.” When you find a statutory law, Ohio Supreme Court holding or U.S. Supreme Court holding that declares that a person has a duty to retreat or avoid a danger before employing self-defense in a place where the victim has a right to be, let me know.

Note: Element 2 in State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) states “(2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force,” citing Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163. The Marts court said,

“Homicide is justifiable on the ground of self-defense, where the slayer, in the careful and proper use of his faculties, bona fide believes, and has reasonable ground to believe, that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of escape from such danger [of death] will be by taking the life of his assailant, although in fact he is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger.”

In other words, element 2 means the escape from death or great bodily harm. Element 2 has nothing to do with running away or retreating from a dangerous situation. If that were the case then element 3, discussed above, would be superfluous.

[GatorNavy]

Does Ohio law require a victim of an attack to attempt to retreat or escape before employing self-defense?

Ohio law does not require retreat or escape in the residence or vehicle, see R.C. §§2901.05 and 2901.09. But, does Ohio statutory law require retreat or escape when the victim is lawfully in a place other than a residence or vehicle? The answer to that question is no. In other words, Ohio law does not require a victim of an attack to retreat or escape before employing self-defense. Generally, self-defense flows from statutory law dealing with murder, assault, rape, kidnapping or robbery. But self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be asserted at the first instant, R.C. §2901.05.

However, what do the courts say, or case law? Well, State v. Wright, 88 NE 3d 487 – Ohio (2017-Ohio-1225): Court of Appeals, 6th Appellate Dist. (2017), stated at paragraph 27 that:

To establish self-defense the defendant must prove (1) that he was not at fault in creating the situation; (2) that he had reasonable grounds to believe and an honest belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was by the use of deadly force; and (3) that he did not violate any duty to escape to avoid the danger. State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 283, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986). “If the defendant fails to prove any one of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence he has failed to demonstrate that he acted in self-defense.” Id. at 284

The Wright Court says that there are three elements that are required to be met to establish self-defense. It is, however, the third element that is suspect. The third element says the victim “did not violate any duty to escape to avoid the danger” before employing self-defense. This conclusion is not based on an enacted Ohio statutory law. The Wright Court is relying on the Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 283, 490 N.E.2d 893 (1986).

What does the Jackson Court say? It says:

This court held in State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 74, 79-80 [12 O.O.3d 84], quoting State v. Melchior (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 15 [10 O.O.3d 8], that "`[t]o establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray ** * [citations omitted]; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force * * *[citations omitted]; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.'" The Peacock and Graham cases state, respectively, that one has no duty to retreat if he is assaulted in his home or business.

The Jackson Court cites State v. Peacock from 1883 and Graham v. State from 1918. The Jackson Court also stated that “The Peacock and Graham cases state, respectively, that one has no duty to retreat if he is assaulted in his home or business.” This is a clear misrepresentation of the two cases. Neither case mentions trespass nor that a victim has a duty to retreat because the victim was trespassing on the assailant’s private property. Nor does either case even mention a duty to retreat or escape before employing self-defense. Where did this idea come from? The Jackson Court relied on State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) which is also a Supreme Court case. The Melchior Court stated at paragraph 21 that:

To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, Stewart v. State (1852), 1 Ohio St. 66, 75; State v. Doty (1916), 94 Ohio St. 258; State v. Morgan (1919), 100 Ohio St. 66, 72; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force, Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163, paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Champion (1924), 109 Ohio St. 281, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio St. 308, 310; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.

In the very next paragraph the Melchior Court stated, “Krista had a right to stand his ground and protect his property. Erwin v. State (1876), 29 Ohio St. 186.” The Erwin case is addressed more fully below.

The Melchior Court’s decision appears to be the first Ohio Supreme Court decision declaring that to claim self-defense “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Citing State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79, in supporting their reasoning. So, what does the Peacock and Graham say.

Peacock is a half-page Ohio Supreme Court decision back in 1883 making a general statement that self-defense is proper when “such means as are necessary to repel the assailant from the house.” Not one word about “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.”

Graham is also an Ohio Supreme Court decision from 1918. The question to the court was, did the alleged victim who claimed self-defense have a duty to escape. The Graham Court stated:

Under the facts detailed, if the defendant did not provoke the assault, but while in the lawful pursuit of his business was suddenly and violently assaulted with a deadly weapon and placed in danger of loss of life or great bodily harm, under the current of modern authority he was not required to retreat.

To support the above finding the Graham Court relied on another Ohio Supreme Court case of Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186, and the United States Supreme Court case of Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 562, 15 S. Ct. 962, 966, 39 L. Ed. 1086 (1895). The Beard Court quoted the Erwin case. The Erwin Court stated:

The law, out of tenderness for human life and the frailties of human nature, will not permit the taking of it to repel a mere trespass, or even to save life where the assault is provoked; but a true man who is without fault is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise maliciously seeks to take his life or do him enormous bodily harm.

The United States Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall Harlan, in Beard stated that:

The defendant was where he had the right to be, when the deceased advanced upon him in a threatening manner, and with a deadly weapon; and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life or to protect himself from great bodily injury. (my emphasis)

Did you catch that? Even the USSC said you are not obligated to retreat.

The Ohio Supreme Court stated, in Melchior, that “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” Is this a mischaracterization of Peacock, Graham and Erwin? The phrase does not say a slayer has a “duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” It says the “slayer must not have violated any duty.” Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, defines “DUTY” as “A human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them.”

Since all cases after Melchior conform with Melchior and Melchior relies on 19th. century and three quarters of the 20th. century case holdings, and since Peacock, Graham and Erwin do not require a slayer to retreat or avoid a danger if the slayer was not the aggressor then using self-defense as an affirmative defense is proper and the Castle Doctrine theory plays no part. Which means that the Wright case was wrongly decided because it presumed if you have no duty to retreat in your home then you do have a duty to retreat outside your home, but that is not the law.

One of the earliest cases addressing the duty to retreat is from 1840. That case is State v Noble, 1 Dec. (Re.) 1. The Noble Court stated that “The English doctrine, that a party assaulted must flee as far as he can before he resists, has no foundation in human nature. The true position is this: A sudden quarrel does not justify the intentional killing of the adversary, unless in self-defense.”

This is true today as it was true as far back as 1840 and by implication back to the founding of Ohio. Ohio has never established in statutory law or in case law that retreat is required in a self-defense situation.

This right of self-defense is NOT an extension of the Castle Doctrine. The right to self-defense applies to wherever you have a right to be. In other words, your right to self-defense in only your castle is a red herring. You have had that right forever no matter where lawfully you are.

At the beginning it was stated that Ohio law does not require retreat or escape in the residence or vehicle, see R.C. §§2901.05 and 2901.09. R.C. §2901.05 did not address the right of self -defense until the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Robinson, 47 Ohio St. 2d 103, 351 N.E.2d 88 (1976), held that self-defense was an affirmative defense. It was not until 2008 that no duty to retreat in the home or vehicle appeared in statutory law. And, R.C. §2901.09 also did not appear in statutory law until 2008 declaring “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.” In other words, implying that you have a duty to attempt to retreat or escape before employing the RIGHT of self-defense outside your castle is contrary to case law holdings.

Let’s not forget, Ohio did not have any significant gun control laws until 1974, six years after the federal “Gun Control Act of 1968” went into effect. Both R.C. §2923.11 “Definitions” of firearms and R.C. §2923.12 “Carrying concealed weapons” went into effect in 1974, as well as other laws regulating firearms.

It bears repeating, the Ohio Supreme Court’s statement, in Melchior, that “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger” does not say a slayer has a “duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” It says the “slayer must not have violated any duty.” When you find a statutory law, Ohio Supreme Court holding or U.S. Supreme Court holding that declares that a person has a duty to retreat or avoid a danger before employing self-defense in a place where the victim has a right to be, let me know.

Note: Element 2 in State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) states “(2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force,” citing Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163. The Marts court said,

“Homicide is justifiable on the ground of self-defense, where the slayer, in the careful and proper use of his faculties, bona fide believes, and has reasonable ground to believe, that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of escape from such danger [of death] will be by taking the life of his assailant, although in fact he is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger.”

In other words, element 2 means the escape from death or great bodily harm. Element 2 has nothing to do with running away or retreating from a dangerous situation. If that were the case then element 3, discussed above, would be superfluous.

Interesting

[bignflnut]

Prosecutors in the Buckeye State are feeling the pressure.

A new state law, set to go into effect Thursday, shifts the burden of proof in self-defense cases.

"Our job became much more difficult with the new law," said Saleh Awadallah, Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor.

Before even hitting the books, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office has dropped murder and voluntary manslaughter charges against a Cleveland man who said he opened fire to defend himself.

Up until now, if someone claimed self-defense in a murder the burden was on them to prove it.

The new Ohio law shifts this responsibility to prosecutors to prove the shooter or victim didn't have reason to use deadly force.

"Not only do they have presumption of innocence on the underlying charges, they also have the presumption they acted in self-defense," said Awadallah.

Poor baby. Making taking people's Liberty away harder must be a great hardship.
Awwwww.

[Javelin Man]

Soooo, we're innocent until proven guilty? Is there something wrong with this picture?

[M-Quigley]

from the news link:

"As you see in the video, there is a very aggressive attack on him and he's rebuffing that attack by using the weapon that he had," said Awadallah.

Awadallah is talking about a October 2017 altercation at the Westender Tavern which ends with Joshua Walker shooting and killing Aaron Mason.

"We felt that we could prove that he did purposely kill and sustain the murder charges, but analyzing under the new law that we could not sustain our burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense," said Awadallah.

So this Awadallah person wants to charge and convict someone of murder because they defended themselves against a very aggressive attack with the only weapon he had? And they have video of it? Either the elements of self defense are there or they aren't, unless you're a prosecutor who believes you shouldn't have a right to defend yourself.

[Bearable]

Saleh Awadallah, Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor said:

It will be more difficult to prosecute. The court indicated they're going to apply the new law and not the existing law at the time of the event. That he didn't violate the duty to retreat, that he wasn't the cause of the incident and that he had a reasonable belief of serious physical harm, and or imminent death,

Did you catch that? “That he didn't violate the duty to retreat,”. That is not what the Ohio Supreme Court said. The Melchior Court said “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.”

“That he didn't violate the duty to retreat,” is different than “the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat…” “[V]iolate the duty to retreat” implies that a statute exists requiring retreat. “[M]ust not have violated any duty to retreat” implies violating a duty IF a duty exists, even if no statute addresses duty to retreat. In other words, court decisions, Ohio Supreme Court and the USSC, have made it clear that there is no duty to retreat.

The courts of appeal have ignored what the Ohio Supreme Court and the USSC has made clear, no duty to retreat.

We need a statutory law that makes it clear that there is no duty to retreat. This will stop the lower courts from applying the wrong standard.