Wearing only underwear, Ryan battled the robber to the front porch ...

[FZRMatt]

in any altercation you are responsible for where ever the bullets go or end up...

Now I'm not saying that if he had hit someone other than the three shit heads involved that he wouldn't be in trouble. But given the situation and the posted facts it would never be an issue here.

[kawi kid]

? really? is that law or to the discretion of the responding officers? what if he would have hit an innocent bystander?

dont get me wrong im glad to see this guy protect himself. im just curious?

[FZRMatt]

I must have missed something in a post somewhere. I don't understand how there is even a question of a person having the right to defend their own life (or the life of another for that matter) in a life threatening attack. In the Constitution we are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, you still have an obligation to be reasonable and not reckless in your actions. However, when you have 3 armed suspects attacking you, and a weapon has already discharged (the dip shit getting his fingers blown off), the thresh hold for reasonable becomes lower.

In this case, reckless would have been a crowded street at lunch time with a back drop of 1000 people. It would be much more difficult to call it reckless at "around 7:00 AM" when there are more than likely few to no people on the street. But it still goes back to the fact there were 3 armed attackers who did not have the intention getting away. Their intention was to rob and or kill the victim in this case. If their intention was to get away, when the victim grabbed the gun inside of the house, the bad guy would have let go and both would have run away. But they didn't. Instead, they fought over a loaded gun that one suspect had already put in the face of the victim while the second suspect beat the victim with a presumably loaded gun. It is cut and dry, he more than likely would have died if they were given the chance.

[jblosser]

No. Only fire with the intent of hitting someone. Ever.

Had that occurred in Ohio, he <could> have been charged. You are not allowed to "prolong" an altercation if the other person is retreating. If I were the D.A. he wouldn't get charged, but an actual D.A. might see it differently.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. There is no way in hell that he would not have been charged in Ohio. ...

Did you mean to say "no way HE WOULD HAVE BEEN charged..."?

I respect your position as (I think) an officer of the law; however I was stating what Ohio CHL law (as taught to me by the attorney who wrote much of the law(s) on the books) says, namely that you're not allowed to prolong an altercation. I believe I also said that <I> would not charge the homeowner, but I believe that he <could>, technically, by the letter of the law be charged. This is assuming that what was reported in the newspaper is what actually happened. If the third actor was, in fact, retreating when the shots were fired, then the victim is technically in violation of the law.

Does it make sense? No. Should you, when fearing for your life, have to figure out who is threatening you at that very moment, and who was but now is retreating? No. Was he able to think rationally as his life was being threatened? Of course not, and I doubt any jury would convict him if some D.A. would have the stones to charge him.

We are on the same side here and have the same opinion, that the victim was justified in the shooting.

[kawi kid]

I never said we shouldn't have the right to protect ourselves, I was merely asking what if a stay bullet from his gun hit a bystander? In our cc class we were told that if it comes down to having to shoot make damn sure we hit our target cuz we are responsible for where the bullets go and what they hit. this guy, even though he was being attacked, hit houses. WHAT IF he harmed a bystander? What is the consequences?

[FZRMatt]

Did you mean to say "no way HE WOULD HAVE BEEN charged..."?

I respect your position as (I think) an officer of the law; however I was stating what Ohio CHL law (as taught to me by the attorney who wrote much of the law(s) on the books) says, namely that you're not allowed to prolong an altercation. I believe I also said that <I> would not charge the homeowner, but I believe that he <could>, technically, by the letter of the law be charged. This is assuming that what was reported in the newspaper is what actually happened. If the third actor was, in fact, retreating when the shots were fired, then the victim is technically in violation of the law.

Does it make sense? No. Should you, when fearing for your life, have to figure out who is threatening you at that very moment, and who was but now is retreating? No. Was he able to think rationally as his life was being threatened? Of course not, and I doubt any jury would convict him if some D.A. would have the stones to charge him.

We are on the same side here and have the same opinion, that the victim was justified in the shooting.

You are correct, I did mean to say that there is no way that he would have been charged, and yes, I am a P.O. I am not saying that the victim would not have to go through the Grand Jury process in a case like this. Even a P.O. who has been shot, returns fire, and kills his assailant still has to go through Grand Jury (at least with our department). But the likelihood of having charges leveled by a G.J. is next to none. As far a prolonging the confrontation, I can't see how anyone would consider shooting at the 3rd armed guy who was attempting to join the fight as prolonging. The victim was still in the thick of the fight with 2 armed attackers actively assaulting him.

One of the first things that we learned doing scenarios in the academy (years ago) is that just because an armed person is running away from you does not mean that he is not a threat. One of our officers was chasing what he thought was a person suspected of breaking into cars. He had no idea that the suspect was armed. The suspect pulled a gun from inside his coat, tucked it between his arm and body, never turned around or looked back and fired. It was dumb luck, but he struck the officer in the femur, shattering it. Running away does not necessarily make him less of a threat. The guy in this case may have been taking up a position of cover to get a better shot.

[FZRMatt]

I never said we shouldn't have the right to protect ourselves, I was merely asking what if a stay bullet from his gun hit a bystander? In our cc class we were told that if it comes down to having to shoot make damn sure we hit our target cuz we are responsible for where the bullets go and what they hit. this guy, even though he was being attacked, hit houses. WHAT IF he harmed a bystander? What is the consequences?

I don't want you to think that the post before this one that I quoted was directed at you. Like I said before, you are still responsible for your actions. However, in a case with the same facts, I would think you would be looking a civil suit at best rather than criminal charges.

[fusion]

"A third man, who was driving the apparent getaway vehicle, ran toward the struggle with his gun drawn but retreated when Ryan brandished the weapon he had taken. Ryan said he then fired five shots and believes he may have hit that man, too."

Fuck that, I would have shot the guy too. I'm not waiting for him to find cover and start taking aimed shots at my happy ass.

Guy is armed, and an accomplice of the two men who've been pistol whipping/fighting/robbing me. He's a dead man.

addendum - I know why you're saying what you're saying, but any competent defense lawyer could easily prove that his life was still in danger. the invading gunman doesn't have to be actively approaching the homeowner to threaten his life. Ohio doesn't have a duty to retreat, so if the gunman could still hit him from where he was standing, reasonably, the homeowner's life was still in danger and was therefore authorized to shoot at the third man.

Right and I agree to a point. What I'm still trying to put together is where the guy behind him went that supposedly pistol whipped him. He took the gun from the one he was struggling with and the one retreated immediately, I wonder why he didn't turn at that point to find the 2nd (that pistol whipped him) instead of shooting at the 3rd that was moving away. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

[CattaniAFJ]

I'm w/ fusion. ( is going on!)

[Ryan_c_F]

Right and I agree to a point. What I'm still trying to put together is where the guy behind him went that supposedly pistol whipped him. He took the gun from the one he was struggling with and the one retreated immediately, I wonder why he didn't turn at that point to find the 2nd (that pistol whipped him) instead of shooting at the 3rd that was moving away. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Sounds like the second guy had a fake gun. I know if I was hood enough to start an armed robbery, and had a gun, and saw my boy's fingers get blown off... if that gun works, I'm using it. Maybe a BB gun painted to look real and "scare folk."

Makes the most sense to me. If only one guy had a real gun, and now my victim has it, I'm not sticking around with a Daisy to finish my robbery.

[chevysoldier]

I remember a saying: "Every bullet you send down range has a lawyer tied to it". I think society tries way too hard to make people scared to defend themselves. It's almost a round about way to gun control. FZRMatt is absolutely correct. Just because someone looks as if they are retreating doesn't mean they are. This brings me to another saying: "Anyone found here during the night will still be found here in the morning"