DontTreadOnMe wrote:Jim-in-Toledo wrote:In Ohio the defendant has to show he was justified in using deadly force.
Which results in a default presumption of guilt unless so shown.
In Florida and every other state, whether or not they have SYG, the prosecutor has to show the defendant was not justified in using deadly force.
Fixed that, which is why the argument that this isn't a SYG bill falls flat. Step 1 in convincing people of something is don't blow your credibility at the outset. That's my problem with this as a supposed way of trying to convince people this bill's a good idea: telling them it isn't what it very plainly is, is a failing tactic.
You're right. Legally speaking, HB 203 is a
Stand Your Ground bill. Neither
Castle Doctrine nor
Stand Your Ground has anything to do with the burden of proof. It is all about the duty of retreat. The confusion began with the original
Castle Doctrine legislation which contained two statutory provisions, one regarding the duty to retreat, and the other regarding legal presumptions affecting the burden of proof. People have confused the two ever since.
The basic common law "castle doctrine" rule has been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court for more than 130 years:
"There is no duty to retreat from one's home." State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247, citing State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333.
Ohio's appellate courts had mentioned this "castle doctrine" long before the enactment of the so-called "Castle Doctrine" legislation:
"Ohio has adopted the so-called 'castle doctrine' which states that a person who through no fault of his own is attacked by an intruder in his own home is under no duty to retreat, but may take the life of the assailant if necessary." State v. Ruland (May 3, 1991), Ashtabula App.No. 90-A-1515 (11th Dist.)
See also,
State v. Payton (Apr. 1, 1993), Cuyahoga App.No. 62243 (8th Dist.);
State v. McDonald (Jul. 6, 1993), Stark App.No. CA-9033 (5th Dist.)
In 2008, the Ohio General Assembly created a statutory "castle doctrine" in R.C. 2901.09 by clarifying the common rule and extending it to vehicles. It was all about the duty of retreat. The
Stand Your Ground provision of HB 203 is merely an extension of the statutory
Castle Doctrine rule, meaning that you can literally "stand your ground," i.e., not retreat, in places other than your residence and vehicle.
The confusion arises because, in the same 2008 legislation, the Ohio General Assembly also enacted a provision in R.C. 2901.05(B) which created a rebuttable presumption in favor of a person acting in self-defense in his own home or vehicle. That provision has nothing to do with the duty to retreat, and thus, it has nothing to do with "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground," and HB 203 does not extend that rebuttable presumption to places other than residences and vehicles.
Ohio courts understand the difference:
"R.C. 2901.09(B), also known as the 'castle doctrine, ' creates an exception to the general duty to retreat, and it states in pertinent part that a person who is in his or her own home 'has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense * * *.'
"Similarly, R.C. 2901.05(B)(1) provides that a defendant is entitled to a presumption of self-defense if the evidence shows that the defendant used defensive force against another person who was 'in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or ha[d] unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered' the defendant's residence." State v. Dale, 2013-Ohio-2229, at ¶16-17 (2nd Dist.)
Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have let this thread go four pages before I wrote this, but sometimes it seems senseless to explain these things. So everyone remember to load bullets into your clip and carry your CCW permit when you go out to tell people that HB 203 isn't a Stand Your Ground bill.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
"Remember that protecting our gun rights still boils down to keeping a majority in the electorate, and that our daily activities can have the impact of being ambassadors for the gun culture ..."
-- BobK
Open carry is a First Amendment exercise.
