Options
"Shoot First" Legislation
Jammin909
Posts: 888
http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=25820
I'm not sure if this issue has been covered by the media or it has been discussed here before but sounds crazy...
Worthington resident Allen Davis allegedly opened fire on a group of high-school students near his yard on Aug. 22, critically wounding one. Davis is currently in custody facing felonious assault charges. While the senseless tragedy has prompted an outpouring of emotion in the Columbus community, several Ohio lawmakers have taken a more dry-eyed approach.
Concluding that shooting someone in Ohio currently leads to too much legal liability, 22 House members and 15 state senators have co-sponsored legislation that would make it harder to prosecute people who use deadly force in what they claim to be self-defense.
House Bill 541 and its companion bill in the Senate would immunize from prosecution or civil penalty anyone who acts with a "reasonable fear" of "bodily harm."
The bill, which is similar to a recently enacted Florida law, eliminates the duty to retreat, which means that you would have the legal option of killing even if you could simply walk away from a threat without further danger to yourself. The bill also establishes that anyone who enters a home or vehicle without legal permission can be presumed to intend bodily harm, and therefore can be legally killed by the occupant.
"It's a public-safety kind of bill," said state Rep. Stephen Buehrer, the primary sponsor of the legislation.
"It's a very ancient premise in human history that a man's house is his castle," the northwestern Ohio Republican added. "If an intruder or an invader enters your castle, you've got the right to repulse that intruder from your home. My bill returns us to what the law has been, probably, since the Middle Ages."
But John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, sees the legislation as more medieval.
"It's a license to blast away," Murphy said.
Buehrer thinks the key difference between his bill and current law is that current law does not consider any uninvited visitor to a home to be an inherent threat worthy of deadly force.
"Current law is there has to be a -- I'm not thinking of the legal term right now, but -- basically there has to be eminent harm or death to the homeowner," said Buehrer, who in addition to serving in the state Legislature is a practicing attorney.
"Many times, the homeowner could potentially be liable unless there's actually a gun or a weapon being brandished by an invader to the house."
But Murphy said there are numerous situations where someone enters a home uninvited without being a threat.
"You could have a neighbor who thinks he has an informal privilege to enter your home. He takes one step inside, and you blow him away," Murphy said. "Under the bill, you're immune from murder charges."
For state Rep. Keith Faber, a co-sponsor of the bill, eliminating the duty to retreat is crucial.
"If there's a home invasion, what are my obligations? Do I have to run to my safe room and cower behind the door?" asked Faber, a Republican from western Ohio.
"Do I have a right to defend myself? Some would say, 'No. Wait until they break in, rape and molest your children, and then ask them to leave.'"
But opponents of the bill question when, if ever, a homeowner has been prosecuted in the kind of scenario Faber envisions.
"There's nothing here, no case, no story that would justify this bill," said Zack Ragbourn, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which calls the legislation the "shoot-first" bill. "We don't have people lined up to go to prison for defending their home. And if there aren't any now, it's hard to see how there will be any less if the bill passes."
Murphy, of the prosecutors' association, said those examples are so hard to find because legitimate uses of self-defense are sufficiently protected under the current law and by prosecutors' discretion.
Indeed, neither Buehrer nor Faber offered an example of an Ohio homeowner victimized by overzealous prosecution in a self-defense situation.
While Buehrer is not optimistic that there will be time to pass his bill this year, he does think it has a good chance when the Legislature reconvenes next year. He expects the bill to have the support of the next governor, regardless of whether it's Ted Strickland or Ken Blackwell.
Still, prominent incidents like the Worthington shooting apparently make some uneasy about defending the bill.
Of the 22 co-sponsors of HB 541, only Buehrer and Faber would discuss the legislation. Both Strickland and Blackwell's campaigns declined to comment on the bill.
In the Worthington case, the proposed law would not necessarily clear the alleged shooter, but it might strengthen his defense if he could show he was in fear for himself or others.
That the Worthington incident could be used by gun-control supporters to dampen enthusiasm for the bill angers gun advocates.
"We have to manage the public relations, so the anti's don't get to run away with every single incident," said Ken Hanson, legislative chair of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "The anti's are never squeamish about dancing in a pool of blood."
Here is another site for more info about the legislation:
http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/law/
Possible scenarios that scare me:
1. I enter an apartment building from the common ground floor entrance. A person entered right before me and I am "following him/her up the stairs". Say they both live on the same floor but he/she perceives me as a threat and shoots me. Under this legislation, which has passed in Florida- to my understanding, the man/woman would be free from prosecution.
2. I get rear-ended and get out of my car to approach the guy for his insurance information, he thinks I am pissed at him and shoots me dead. Under this law it seems he would be immune.
3. Some insecure dude shoots me on the street when I ask him for directions at night becuase it is dark out and gets scared.
I'm not sure if this issue has been covered by the media or it has been discussed here before but sounds crazy...
Worthington resident Allen Davis allegedly opened fire on a group of high-school students near his yard on Aug. 22, critically wounding one. Davis is currently in custody facing felonious assault charges. While the senseless tragedy has prompted an outpouring of emotion in the Columbus community, several Ohio lawmakers have taken a more dry-eyed approach.
Concluding that shooting someone in Ohio currently leads to too much legal liability, 22 House members and 15 state senators have co-sponsored legislation that would make it harder to prosecute people who use deadly force in what they claim to be self-defense.
House Bill 541 and its companion bill in the Senate would immunize from prosecution or civil penalty anyone who acts with a "reasonable fear" of "bodily harm."
The bill, which is similar to a recently enacted Florida law, eliminates the duty to retreat, which means that you would have the legal option of killing even if you could simply walk away from a threat without further danger to yourself. The bill also establishes that anyone who enters a home or vehicle without legal permission can be presumed to intend bodily harm, and therefore can be legally killed by the occupant.
"It's a public-safety kind of bill," said state Rep. Stephen Buehrer, the primary sponsor of the legislation.
"It's a very ancient premise in human history that a man's house is his castle," the northwestern Ohio Republican added. "If an intruder or an invader enters your castle, you've got the right to repulse that intruder from your home. My bill returns us to what the law has been, probably, since the Middle Ages."
But John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, sees the legislation as more medieval.
"It's a license to blast away," Murphy said.
Buehrer thinks the key difference between his bill and current law is that current law does not consider any uninvited visitor to a home to be an inherent threat worthy of deadly force.
"Current law is there has to be a -- I'm not thinking of the legal term right now, but -- basically there has to be eminent harm or death to the homeowner," said Buehrer, who in addition to serving in the state Legislature is a practicing attorney.
"Many times, the homeowner could potentially be liable unless there's actually a gun or a weapon being brandished by an invader to the house."
But Murphy said there are numerous situations where someone enters a home uninvited without being a threat.
"You could have a neighbor who thinks he has an informal privilege to enter your home. He takes one step inside, and you blow him away," Murphy said. "Under the bill, you're immune from murder charges."
For state Rep. Keith Faber, a co-sponsor of the bill, eliminating the duty to retreat is crucial.
"If there's a home invasion, what are my obligations? Do I have to run to my safe room and cower behind the door?" asked Faber, a Republican from western Ohio.
"Do I have a right to defend myself? Some would say, 'No. Wait until they break in, rape and molest your children, and then ask them to leave.'"
But opponents of the bill question when, if ever, a homeowner has been prosecuted in the kind of scenario Faber envisions.
"There's nothing here, no case, no story that would justify this bill," said Zack Ragbourn, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which calls the legislation the "shoot-first" bill. "We don't have people lined up to go to prison for defending their home. And if there aren't any now, it's hard to see how there will be any less if the bill passes."
Murphy, of the prosecutors' association, said those examples are so hard to find because legitimate uses of self-defense are sufficiently protected under the current law and by prosecutors' discretion.
Indeed, neither Buehrer nor Faber offered an example of an Ohio homeowner victimized by overzealous prosecution in a self-defense situation.
While Buehrer is not optimistic that there will be time to pass his bill this year, he does think it has a good chance when the Legislature reconvenes next year. He expects the bill to have the support of the next governor, regardless of whether it's Ted Strickland or Ken Blackwell.
Still, prominent incidents like the Worthington shooting apparently make some uneasy about defending the bill.
Of the 22 co-sponsors of HB 541, only Buehrer and Faber would discuss the legislation. Both Strickland and Blackwell's campaigns declined to comment on the bill.
In the Worthington case, the proposed law would not necessarily clear the alleged shooter, but it might strengthen his defense if he could show he was in fear for himself or others.
That the Worthington incident could be used by gun-control supporters to dampen enthusiasm for the bill angers gun advocates.
"We have to manage the public relations, so the anti's don't get to run away with every single incident," said Ken Hanson, legislative chair of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "The anti's are never squeamish about dancing in a pool of blood."
Here is another site for more info about the legislation:
http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/law/
Possible scenarios that scare me:
1. I enter an apartment building from the common ground floor entrance. A person entered right before me and I am "following him/her up the stairs". Say they both live on the same floor but he/she perceives me as a threat and shoots me. Under this legislation, which has passed in Florida- to my understanding, the man/woman would be free from prosecution.
2. I get rear-ended and get out of my car to approach the guy for his insurance information, he thinks I am pissed at him and shoots me dead. Under this law it seems he would be immune.
3. Some insecure dude shoots me on the street when I ask him for directions at night becuase it is dark out and gets scared.
The less you know, the more you believe.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Jason Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, Florida, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law there. "Had it been a year and a half ago," Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen, "he could have been arrested for attempted murder."
"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Allen's door. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
"I was no threat," Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."
The two men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the door," Rosenbloom said of Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."
Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Rosenbloom denied.
"I have a right," Allen said, "to keep my house safe."
(2) For the purposes of division (A)(1) of this section, a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the other person's will from a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.
(b) The person who uses the defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act of a type described in division (A)(2)(a) of this section was occurring or had occurred.
Yes ... In none of these scenarios can any sort of plausible justification for self-defense be made. The law is open to inference and interpretation, like any law should be.
Read the second story I posted.
"Duty to retreat" what a phrase.
Are you saying that, I, as the owner of my property/home have a duty to retreat from my home if someone else whom I deem a threat to me comes into my house? If so, a duty to whom? or to what?
www.lp.org
www.mises.org
www.fairtax.org
"Freedom cannot survive the number of Americans who think that the government is there to take care of them."
No, not from you're home, but I think the spirit of the phrase is that you are supposed to stop deploying lethal force as soon as the threat is gone. i.e., if the guy who breaks in runs away after you shoot, still alive, you shouldn't chase him into the street, still blasting away. Maybe I am mistaken.
But no, I dont' think you should have to leave your home if someone breaks in.
If someone breaks in, and the owner shoot him (example), the owner will face a trial for murder, even if he is in his home (of course with good chance of being found non guilty of murder). In Canada at least.
edit: if the man breaking in is menacing your life, you wont be charged, if he's not armed, you will...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
However, it is a troublesome legal precedent, if any intruder automatically justifies maximum force. That's just silly. Especially the extension about any entrance is automatically a threat, hence automatically justifies shooting.
To me the retreat-thing reads like you're not supposed to go in guns blazing, shooting first, and asking later. Retreat means you wait as long as you can before exterting lethal force. You take a step back, point your gun, and if he still comes, and is considered dangerous, then fire. That's just sense, really.
And those "scenarios" they point to really are laughable. Especially considering they can't come up with any case where this law would help or solve a problem.
posturing, and playing at bravado and macho "Noone messes with me or else". Yawn. Hope the Ohio legislators have some sense.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I really fail to see what the Worthington case has to do with this proposed law. Three teenage girls went out "ghost hunting." Allen Davis lives across the street from the local cemetary, and rumors about town claim that his house is haunted. The girls went by the cemetary, two of them got out of the car and took a couple of steps up the walkway to Davis' home. The girl that had remained in the car honked the horn, so the two then got back in the car and drove away. They went around the block, and the 17-year old was shot as the car passed the house the second time. These are facts, they are undisputed, even by Davis, who says he didn't mean to hurt the girls, only scare them. He's scared quite a few people by putting a bullet in one girl's brain. My opinion is that anyone stupid enough to fire a weapon under such circumstances ought not to be on the loose unsupervised.
This legislation would further protect the legal rights of the shooter in situations other than home-invasion. I am more concerned about roadrage incidents, bar fights, and people over-reacting resorting to guns and then being immune from prosecution bc they felt "threatened" when other options existed. Even if a person fired a shot when they could have easily just walked away, like in a bar fight that person could/would be covered in the state of Florida.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Do your police actually prevent crime from occuring? That rocks. Ours don't. They can't protect us and only respond after the fact.
And perhaps the notion of self-reliance is different here. I would never be comfortable in a place where the police are the only ones with ultimate power.
If someone I don't know is walking around my house at night uninvited, you're damn right it is a threat. I'm not going to engage him in conversation and politely request that he finish his business and close the door behind him on the way out.
It never ceases to amaze me the depth of stupidity abundant in this country.
These laws should be focused on returning the rights to innocent, law-abbiding citizens and homeowners. And protecting them, their families and their property from invasion, intrusion and attack.
Criminals/murders (and their families) should not have the right to sue for compensation, punitive damages or monetary gain, when they (or a family member) is injured or killed in a criminal act. Just the thought of it is absurd.
First of all, no one should be walking into anyone else's house or apartment, without knocking, or ringing the bell, or calling on the phone ahead of time or at the very least announcing themselves at the door; before entering.
It's common courtesey.........it's polite.........it's respect.
Certainly one wouldn't want to walk in as a friend, neighbor or family member who is getting out of the shower and walking around in the nude, or maybe having sex. Or walking in on someone who likes to hang around the house in their underwear or birthday suit.
As for the home/apartment occupants or owners, lock the freakin' door if you are doing any of the above mentioned things.
Anyone who walks into your house unwelcomed, picks your locks, kicks open your doors or breaks and climbs through your windows, is not coming in for a cup of tea and some chit-chat. Once they do such things, they are criminals with bad intentions. I don't give a crap what their intentions are, they have no right or business being there and imposing themselves.
No one has a right to enter someone else's house, without a an invitation, a welcome or approval of the home owner or occupant/renter.
In these situations things happen very quickly and often they work in pairs or multiples. No time to extend an olive branch and inquire of their intentions (not that they would tell you the truth ).
If someone breaks into my home, they won't be needing any walking shoes.
I also find it interesting some here choose to assume Jason Rosenbloom was telling the truth. Seems a very real possibility there is another side to this story and shooting, which Jason Rosenbloom may be selectively ignoring.