This is a clear loophole, and he should win. There are two different standards... O.R.C. 2901.05 Burden of Proof and Self-defense This allows the rebuttable presumption that you acted lawfully when using deadly force to stop a BG who is trying to enter a vehicle you are lawfully in, as long as the BG does not have a lawful right to be in the vehicle also. (The prosecutor must prove that you knew the BG was not trying to harm you) This applies to any car you are lawfully in, and the BG has no lawful right to enter. Then there's O.R.C 2901.09 which states you have no duty to retreat (NOT that you are presumed to have acted lawfully) YOU must still prove that youe reasonably thought the BG was going to use deadly force against you. This applies only to your car, or an immediate family member's car. On the one hand the civil and criminal protection from liability applies only to a vehicle owned by yourself or an immediate family member... But that only negates the duty to retreat - the defendant still has to prove (by preponderance) that the person trying to enter the car was It's going to depend on the individual circumstances of the event in question. If the prosecution can convince the judge/jury that he knew he was not at risk of deadly harm then neither of the laws above apply to him, and the conviction should succeed. Was this a jealous ex-bf who was unarmed and just in a verbal? (not covered) Or some random dude walking up to the car whose intentions are not known? (covered)