"Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Use this forum to post your experience with encounters with law enforcement, criminals, or other encounters as a result of your firearm or potential to be carrying one.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
Klingon00
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by Klingon00 »

Tweed Ring wrote:See Zimmerman, George.

See action, politicized by various pols.

See action, weaponized, by news media.

See life, ruined.
I'd like to point out that George Zimmerman did not pull out his gun in defense of property, he only pulled it out after he was being physically beaten and was in fear for his life. A distinction I notice many still seem to be confused about. I believe It was this reason alone that he was acquitted. His life was still ruined.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH
Contact:

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by WY_Not »

Unfortunately, he does not seem to be doing much to try and mitigate this part. For whatever reason, the guys just seems to be a...
Image
Klingon00 wrote:His life was still ruined.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by Tweed Ring »

Klingon00 wrote:
Tweed Ring wrote:See Zimmerman, George.

See action, politicized by various pols.

See action, weaponized, by news media.

See life, ruined.
I'd like to point out that George Zimmerman did not pull out his gun in defense of property, he only pulled it out after he was being physically beaten and was in fear for his life. A distinction I notice many still seem to be confused about. I believe It was this reason alone that he was acquitted. His life was still ruined.

I was never a Zimmerman fan. I understand his fact-pattern. But, he's clearly an example of what can happen to anyone who so acts when the legacy Lewinsky media needs a story, and the pols need a target.
User avatar
Klingon00
Posts: 3824
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by Klingon00 »

Sometimes you're damned no matter what you do if you've been selected as a target for destruction by the media. Some people take a bad situation and make life even worse for themselves. There's no accounting for what some people decide to do with their lives.
curmudgeon3
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:31 pm

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by curmudgeon3 »

Then there's the effects of that brain-rattling pounding Z's head absorbed against the concrete sidewalk (as evidenced by the lacerations) to consider.
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 19034
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by carmen fovozzo »

I read somewhere, once your brain is rattled you can't rattle it again...
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Tweed Ring wrote:
AmendII71 wrote:The interesting discussion to be had in this regard, is how do you handle someone not armed, inside your home, stealing your property. To me, this is the the real sticky one.
I believe one can use a reasonable amount of force, but less than deadly force, after calling 911, to protect one's property.
There's no requirement to call 911 beforehand. It's a good idea and I recommend it, but it's not a requirement.

If you know, for a fact, that the person is only stealing property you cannot use deadly force in response even in your own home. If you do you have the presumption that you acted legally, but it's a rebuttable presumption.

Example: You see a guy walking towards the door with your TV in both hands and his back to you. If you shoot him you get the presumption you acted legally, but the prosecutor gets to argue that there was no physical threat to you and no reasonable person would have thought there was. If the jury agrees, you go to jail (castle doctrine notwithstanding).
carmen fovozzo wrote:Base Ball Bat..
Still deadly force. If the gun isn't allowable, neither is the bat.
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by Tweed Ring »

I respectfully disagree. I always train students to call 911 as soon as it is safe to claim the coveted victim status. As for a bludgeon used to protect one’s property, if one uses reasonable force, but less than deadly force, I believe it is permitted. When I did baton training, I used a yellow plastic Wiffle ball bat to demonstrate strong and weak side arm locks, under arm arm bars, etc. The trauma so created, if any, is negligible.
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 19034
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by carmen fovozzo »

Nuzio and Guido always use a bat because they never wanted to be called hit men. They were enforcers....
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Tweed Ring wrote:I respectfully disagree. I always train students to call 911 as soon as it is safe to claim the coveted victim status.
Nothing wrong with training to call 911 first. I read your post as saying it was mandatory.
Tweed Ring wrote:As for a bludgeon used to protect one’s property, if one uses reasonable force, but less than deadly force, I believe it is permitted.
That's a big if. Remember that in Ohio the person using defensive force bears the burden of convincing a jury of every element of their claim.

Using a bat as a tool to restrain someone, sure. Swinging it at a person (use as a bludgeon)? I think it would be very difficult to convince a jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was not likely to cause "death or great bodily harm" (whether or not it actually did).
To prevail on a nondeadly-force affirmative defense, one must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he was not at fault in creating the situation, (2) he reasonably believed that some force was necessary to defend himself against the imminent use of unlawful force, and (3) the force used was not likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
Cleveland v. Welms, 169 Ohio App. 3d 600, 2006-Ohio-6441
The Ohio Supreme Court has held not defined "great bodily harm" but has held that the terms "great bodily harm" and "serious physical harm" are substantially similar. RC 2901.01 defines "serious physical harm" as:
(5) "Serious physical harm to persons" means any of the following:

(a) Any mental illness or condition of such gravity as would normally require hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment;

(b) Any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death;

(c) Any physical harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether partial or total, or that involves some temporary, substantial incapacity;

(d) Any physical harm that involves some permanent disfigurement or that involves some temporary, serious disfigurement;

(e) Any physical harm that involves acute pain of such duration as to result in substantial suffering or that involves any degree of prolonged or intractable pain.
Broken bones will fall under one or the other (or both) highlighted sections. So the defendant has to prove that using a bat to bludgeon a person was not likely to cause broken bones. Good luck with that.
carmen fovozzo
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 19034
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:08 am
Location: NEO

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by carmen fovozzo »

Person breaks into home..Home owner get bat and cracks person over head that broke into his home....Jury finds home owner not guilty....what jury would convict you in those circumstances ?
Last edited by carmen fovozzo on Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Life is full of God given coincidences..
A MEMBER OF OFCC SINCE 2004...
Thanks for shopping at Charmin Carmens
Tweed Ring
Posts: 17812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:15 am

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by Tweed Ring »

A front jab to the lower abdomen will not break any bones, if done correctly. A spin strike to the hamstring will not break any bones, if done correctly. A variety of restraining techniques, applied to the opponent's arm will not break any bones, if done correctly. Application of trauma can be controlled - trauma can be escalated, if needed.
WayneB
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:52 am
Location: Norton, Ohio (Summit County)

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by WayneB »

Have the courts so defined "temporary" or "prolonged" or "substantial"?

So, the guy is walking out of my house carrying my TV. I whack him on the arm or across the back and shoulders with my bat.

I'm going to guess there is going to be some temporary, substantial pain. (at least by my definition.) If there's not, then my bat technique needs some training with TR. Hopefully he will not be able to use his arm (to attack me) for a while. Would that be "substantial incapacity"?

It was reasonable non-deadly force in order to secure my property. (Hey, he was bigger, younger and stronger than me.)

If the above will likely land me in jail, then we have just indicated that there is little a homeowner can do to stop someone from walking out of their house with whatever suits them.

Or, does the fact that he broke into my property and is no longer just a LAC minding his own business negate some of his protections under 2901.01, thereby granting ME the ability to use "reasonable, non-deadly force"?
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

Tweed Ring wrote:A front jab to the lower abdomen will not break any bones, if done correctly. A spin strike to the hamstring will not break any bones, if done correctly.
And if done incorrectly? Or if the target is moving and the strike doesn't land where expected?

Remember it's a question of likely, not just actual harm and in Ohio you bear the legal burden of proving the charge (beyond a preponderance of the evidence) to a jury that has their own experiences with how baseball bats & the human body work, so you've got an initial hill to climb.
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: "Why didn't you pull that gun?"

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

carmen fovozzo wrote:Person breaks into home..Home owner get bat and cracks person over head that broke into his home....Jury finds home owner not guilty....what jury would convict you in those circumstances ?
That's going to be heavily fact-specific but you've changed the circumstance from defense of property to self-defense. In your own home you get the presumption and the prosecution would have to prove otherwise.
Post Reply