Hole in HB203?

[Stryker74]

I hope I am not stepping on Gary's toes here - but he brought up an excellent point at the show this past weekend.

All of the focus in HB203 for the duty to retreat is a change to 2901.09 - No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle. However, there is the civil aspect of that on ORC 2307.601 that does not seem to be addressed. The wording on section B of is identical to Section B of 2901.09.

I would think we would want 2307.601 modified to match the proposed change in 2901.09. Thoughts?


All credit to Gary Witt for finding that one in the ORC. I know I get hung up on the specific codes, rather than search on terms or phrases - I would not have found this one.

[Werz]

I hope I am not stepping on Gary's toes here - but he brought up an excellent point at the show this past weekend.

All of the focus in HB203 for the duty to retreat is a change to 2901.09 - No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle. However, there is the civil aspect of that on ORC 2307.601 that does not seem to be addressed. The wording on section B of is identical to Section B of 2901.09.

I would think we would want 2307.601 modified to match the proposed change in 2901.09. Thoughts?

So you want the ambulance chasers fighting it, too? Keep in mind that some of them have a lot of money. Talk about a poison pill!

[JediSkipdogg]

OFCC is aware of that and if you want to see some anger, talk to NavyChief. He's a huge supporter of SYG and probably the biggest one that's been fighting for it to come to Ohio. Unfortunately, his version didn't make it into HB203 and someone else's did with that hole.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Bring it up on the 29th?

[williatw]

Sorry for this post:

http://ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php? ... 5#p4233970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I should have realized that the sharp-eyes here would have noticed that before me. This is a problem, if HB203 passes in its current form it would probably over-ride the current Castle Doctrine Law, then we would likely even lose the current civil immunity we have for deadly self-defense in our homes and vehicles. Hell, if the people who are opposed to it realized that, they would probably be in favor of it.

[tcamdg]

So, what's the status of this?

[Chuck]

The so-called "hole" stands.

Shoot someone in self defense on the street and you can still be sued in civil court.
Same as you can now

The only change is to remove the duty to retreat as long as you aren't trespassing,,,,

[techguy85]

We already have as close to civil immunity as we're likely to get... Does this bill actually repeal this?
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bruce741]

Hell, if the people who are opposed to it realized that, they would probably be in favor of it.

[mrbone]

I looked at the text of HB 203 and don't think this is cause for alarm.

When Castle Doctrine was passed, it did two things:
1) Eliminate the duty to retreat when in your car or home (ORC 2901.09).
2) Provide civil lawsuit immunity when in your car or home (ORC 2307.601).

What HB 203 does is eliminate all the verbiage about cars and homes from 2901.09. It does nothing to 2307.601. This means that it does not strengthen the civil immunity statute. More importantly, it also means that the civil immunity law is not weakened.

The hole is that the law becomes inconsistent. If outside a home or car and you defend yourself from a lethal threat then failure to retreat makes you immune from criminal prosecution (new) but not from civil lawsuits (same as always). I'd certainly like to see that fixed, but this isn't a case where we're sacrificing one thing to obtain another. It's a case of the Ohio legislature, as usual, taking baby steps in the right direction.

[BobK]

The so-called "hole" stands.

Shoot someone in self defense on the street and you can still be sued in civil court.
Same as you can now

The only change is to remove the duty to retreat as long as you aren't trespassing,,,,

Actually, per O.R.C. 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act, if we have to defend ourselves, the Bad Guy is barred from collecting any damages if the BG committed "a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor of violence" that was the cause of our injuring the BG. Basically, if the BG is committing a violent crime, the BG cannot collect. This portion of the law protects us wherever we are and is not dependent upon being in a private residence or vehicle.

That still stands in the new bill.

If it is an act of self defense, the BG cannot collect damages. Note that R.C. 2307.60 says nothing about duty to retreat on the part of the victim, it simply bars the person committing the criminal act from collecting.

[FormerNavy]

The so-called "hole" stands.

Shoot someone in self defense on the street and you can still be sued in civil court.
Same as you can now

The only change is to remove the duty to retreat as long as you aren't trespassing,,,,

Actually, per O.R.C. 2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act, if we have to defend ourselves, the Bad Guy is barred from collecting any damages if the BG committed "a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor of violence" that was the cause of our injuring the BG. Basically, if the BG is committing a violent crime, the BG cannot collect. This portion of the law protects us wherever we are and is not dependent upon being in a private residence or vehicle.

That still stands in the new bill.

If it is an act of self defense, the BG cannot collect damages. Note that R.C. 2307.60 says nothing about duty to retreat on the part of the victim, it simply bars the person committing the criminal act from collecting.

But I don't think it bars the bad guy's family from collecting should you be forced to end the bad guy's life right?

[BobK]

But I don't think it bars the bad guy's family from collecting should you be forced to end the bad guy's life right?

That could be an interesting discussion.

If I commit an act towards you that is not tortious by statute, hard to see how a family can collect. But I also am well aware that anybody can be sued by anyone for just about anything.

[FormerNavy]

But I don't think it bars the bad guy's family from collecting should you be forced to end the bad guy's life right?

That could be an interesting discussion.

If I commit an act towards you that is not tortious by statute, hard to see how a family can collect. But I also am well aware that anybody can be sued by anyone for just about anything.

OJ Simpson? Found not guilty yet successfully sued in civil court by the decedent's family. I realize this is kind of the inverse of what we're talking about, but I'm just saying you don't have to be guilty of a crime to be found liable for wrongful death. I'm not suggesting a valid self-defense shooting is a "wrongful death" and think it would be a very heavy lift for a bad guy's family to succeed... I am just saying I don't think there is anything in the law that bars their claim (even if the bad guy's claim would be barred if he lived). The law only refers to the individual, not his family.

[BobK]

California doesn't have a law granting immunity.

A definition from Wiki:

A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong which unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.

Hard for me to get past the "the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm."