Gixxus Christ! Posted December 29, 2011 Report Share Posted December 29, 2011 More proof that guns cause crime and are dangerous to everyone and should be abolished. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8137 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted December 29, 2011 Report Share Posted December 29, 2011 Win for the home owner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted December 29, 2011 Report Share Posted December 29, 2011 Under Ohio's Castle Doctrine law, if someone unlawfully enters an occupied home or temporary habitation, or occupied car, citizens have an initial presumption that they may act in self defense, and will not be second-guessed by the State.This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Another like that happened down in Florida, and the home owner got sued.Disregard that all of those four underage kids were armed with 9mm...durrrr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollnhot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 After I have my dogs chew on the nads for a few the little fucks would be beggin' for the bullet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 They're lucky he didn't kill them.And he is unlucky he didn't kill them. They will probably sue his balls off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Another like that happened down in Florida, and the home owner got sued.Disregard that all of those four underage kids were armed with 9mm...durrrr serious...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 And he is unlucky he didn't kill them. They will probably sue his balls off.Can't he counter for breaking in and trespassing? How does he know they were not intening to harm him? And if they try to sue isn't that admitting they were on/in his property with out permission? What about the damage they caused by breaking in and the emotional damage?I don't know all the laws but does any of this mean anything in ohio? Or is the home owner screwed if the thief lives? Or should he Shoot to kill no witnesses... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Can't he counter for breaking in and trespassing? How does he know they were not intening to harm him? And if they try to sue isn't that admitting they were on/in his property with out permission? What about the damage they caused by breaking in and the emotional damage?I don't know all the laws but does any of this mean anything in ohio? Or is the home owner screwed if the thief lives? Or should he Shoot to kill no witnesses...Dead men tell no tales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Thanks IP! Good info I know things are always changing so this was a nice refresher.My thoughts to Max. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Another like that happened down in Florida, and the home owner got sued.Disregard that all of those four underage kids were armed with 9mm...durrrrMore details? They have Castle Doctrine in FL too, so seems to me like he shouldn't be subhect to being sued for a case like the once cited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStump Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was just having this conversation with a couple friends today. We saw a commercial on tv about ADT security and the ad showed 2 people coming home to a robbery in progress, when the burglar saw them he ran away. I said " you don't need ADT, you just need a gun" to which they replied saying how I would get sued if I shot someone in my house etc. I tired to explain to them how the castle doctrine works but they were insistent on saying I was wrong. 20 minutes later I gave up trying to convince them because they were chicks and it was a lost cause lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was just having this conversation with a couple friends today. We saw a commercial on tv about ADT security and the ad showed 2 people coming home to a robbery in progress, when the burglar saw them he ran away. I said " you don't need ADT, you just need a gun" to which they replied saying how I would get sued if I shot someone in my house etc. I tired to explain to them how the castle doctrine works but they were insistent on saying I was wrong. 20 minutes later I gave up trying to convince them because they were chicks and it was a lost cause lol.Have IP talk to them!I don't care about the law as much as my own life. I can shoot to kill and then they don't sue. alarms don't always stop thieves bullets do if done right....I am a girl and that is why I do own guns (and they are a lot of fun). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 http://www.ohioccw.org/200805293990/what-does-sb-184-mean-to-you.htmlThe problem IP is that the law is "interpreted" by the judge of whichwho knows what can happen. Even the link you posted, he said, "Below is my interpretation of the bill. It is in no way intended to be construed as legal advice or a professional interpretation. I encourage you to read the bill yourself. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beegreenstrings Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Should have killed them!Under other Ohio laws and acts upon such a violence the kids could now come back and sue the homeowner. Yes, even though they broke in to his home... They could have been hungry and needed something to eat and had no intention at all of injuring the man, they were just hungry.Now, if they are dead. There is no such argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gixxus Christ! Posted December 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Seems to be two camps here, the "dead men don't sue" camp and the "castle doctrine will protect you" camp. While dead men don't sue, their families certainly can. I would rather pay a couple hundred grand because dickhead burglar has to limp to all his robberies now vs a few million because poor ole Mrs Johnson lost her sweet baby felon. I do believe the castle doctrine would prevent a civil case against this guys tho, he was outnumbered in his own home and well within his rights to shoot. It would take a crazy liberal nutsack of a judge to take any money out of his pockets and pit it into those of the thieves. The thieves are moat likely broke and can't afford to hire a lawyer, especially from prison, so I don't see how they could sue at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was taught shoot to kill, wounded attackers can still kill you. If your hungry knock on the door I may feed you and I won't shoot you. Break in my home I fear for my life not knowing your intensions and will kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was taught shoot to kill, wounded attackers can still kill you. If your hungry knock on the door I may feed you and I won't shoot you. Break in my home I fear for my life not knowing your intensions and will kill you.Good rationalization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granda080 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 One of my dad's friends had two guys break into his barn several years ago. The barn owner shot one guy, killing him, and the other guy ran off. My dad's friend spent seven years in jail for voluntary manslaughter. Right or wrong, that was the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 One of my dad's friends had two guys break into his barn several years ago. The barn owner shot one guy, killing him, and the other guy ran off. My dad's friend spent seven years in jail for voluntary manslaughter. Right or wrong, that was the outcome.Barn vs, primary residence, yeah I can see that for sure. Do I agree, no, but I definitely can see how he got time for that one. I can't shoot someone for breaking into my exterior shed, even though I have about 5,000 worth of power tools in there.BUT I am definitely on the dead man tell no tales side of this debate. You enter my house uninvited, I will not shoot to injure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granda080 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Barn vs, primary residence, yeah I can see that for sure. Do I agree, no, but I definitely can see how he got time for that one. I can't shoot someone for breaking into my exterior shed, even though I have about 5,000 worth of power tools in there.BUT I am definitely on the dead man tell no tales side of this debate. You enter my house uninvited, I will not shoot to injure.I think it's all about the judge one ends up in front of and the quality of the lawyer on the other side of the room. IMO it's dumb. I can potentially shoot someone for breaking into my house, which is my property. Yet, if I shoot someone for breaking into my garage/barn/daughter's chastity belt/car I'm going to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStump Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I think it's all about the judge one ends up in front of and the quality of the lawyer on the other side of the room. IMO it's dumb. I can potentially shoot someone for breaking into my house, which is my property. Yet, if I shoot someone for breaking into my garage/barn/daughter's chastity belt/car I'm going to jail.The law is meant for protection only. You are not occupying the barn and in danger when the person broke in so you are supposed to leave them alone unless they come into your actual house. Now if it were the middle of the day and someone broke in while you were doing work in the barn you may get away with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granda080 Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 The law is meant for protection only. You are not occupying the barn and in danger when the person broke in so you are supposed to leave them alone unless they come into your actual house. Now if it were the middle of the day and someone broke in while you were doing work in the barn you may get away with that.I'll just help them load my shit into their truck. I wouldn't want to be inhospitable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beegreenstrings Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 I was taught shoot to kill, wounded attackers can still kill you. If your hungry knock on the door I may feed you and I won't shoot you. Break in my home I fear for my life not knowing your intensions and will kill you.Hey I fully feel if you are breaking and entering or you are trespassing... May god have pity on your soul because this owner does not. I was taught If that sight is on something you intend to put down then you put it down. You never shoot to wound. That is just inhumane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 You can't use deadly force to protect property.The barn shooting would depend on a couple of things. Did he shoot them from a distance where they were no threat to him? Did they have the means, motive and opportunity to use deadly force? And did the shooter try to flee?The barn is not protected by any kind of castle doctrine or anything else like that. You must flee if you can do so safely.The barn thing could have gone down either like this:"I heard a sound coming from the barn so I went to check on it, took my gun for protection. When I saw there were people breaking in I tried to run back to the house but they cornered me, one of them had a crowbar and lunged at me. I shot him and his friend fled." Innocent.or like this:"I heard a sound coming from the barn so I went to check on it, took my gun for protection. When I saw there were people breaking in I saw I could take a long shot from where I was, though an open door and hit the guy 100' away as he was loading my stuff into his truck. I shot him and his friend ran off." Guilty.Or somewhere in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.