Castle Doctrine only in your own car????

[Tomcat0403]

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/jun/05/ohio-man-claims-castle-doctrine-car-gun-case-ar-1060613/

Man was charge with menacing after he draws on someone trying to get into his girlfriends car. Ruling was that Castle Doctrine only applies to your own car...wtf!

[grapesmuggler27]

I don't thing a jury would actually find him guilty.

[CleaveTheGreat]

I don't thing a jury would actually find him guilty.

I would hope not. But you'd be surprised...

[grapesmuggler27]

I would hope not. But you'd be surprised...

I guess there could be 12 Exarch's on the jury

[kawi kid]

I would like to know the whole circumstance. Where was he? Was he in a parking lot or driving down the road?

[idodishez]

Technically the car I drive everyday is registered to my dad. So I guess I should just retreat if attacked?

Doorfront Parking like a BOSS

NoBama 2012

[swingset]

The law is fucked up in this regard, and is actually specific enough he might be in for a tougher legal battle than he should be.

Ohio Revised Code 2901.09 (B) states “a person who lawfully is in that person’s residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person’s vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.”

Operative part in red. It really should be "occupant in a vehicle", period. Why it needs to be a family member for your life to count for shit is beyond me. Poor wording and intent, here, IMHO.

[swingset]

Technically the car I drive everyday is registered to my dad. So I guess I should just retreat if attacked?

Doorfront Parking like a BOSS

NoBama 2012

See above, you're fine.

[Pokey]

So much fail, and bet your ass I would've done the same thing.

[conn-e-rot]

One thing I see he did wrong is he didn't drop the scumbag

[jblosser]

Ohio Revised Code 2901.09 (B) states “a person who lawfully is in that person’s residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person’s vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.”

Actually not ambiguous if you stop before the stupid part...

"...has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another...and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle..."

The more relevant section of law is 2901.5 (B)(1) which is the "Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self defense" section and states, in part, "...a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another...the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force."

However: in my ever-so-humble opinion, this man's guilty charge should stand as-is. If you EVER take your handgun out of a holster, you had better be legally justified in using it fully and immediately.

Trying the handle of a car door cannot be construed as being subject to imminent great bodily injury or death; sorry. Hand on the weapon, ready to go if the situation escalates? Certainly.

I am purposely ignoring the speculation that the person trying to get into the car was an ex-boyfriend. If that is in fact true, then I'm semi-certain that new boyfriend was trying be tough guy with a weapon and was in "attempt to scare off or intimidate old boyfriend" mode, not in self defense mode.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jblosser

[jblosser]

Well, re-reading the section I cited above, further on it states "...the person..is IN THE PROCESS OF unlawfully...entering..".

So, as I read it, as long as you're "castled", so to speak, shoot away with impunity.

***edit for clarity: knocking on car window, not attempted trespass; lifting door handle of car, attempted trespass, and the Castle presumption <should> apply.

Edited June 6, 2012 by jblosser

[Gump]

I had a crack head try to open my car doors once. So I could have shot him and not had a duty to retreat 1st? Legally speaking? I didn't know what his deal was. Would have never needed to shoot him unless he got in and went nuts. He kept wanting me to put the window down more then tried opening two of my doors. He later said I looked just like his "friend" and had the same car.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Gump

[C-bus]

:dunno:My crackheads always seem to back away and tell me that they were sorry to have bothered me.

[TMCGRAW]

However: in my ever-so-humble opinion, this man's guilty charge should stand as-is. If you EVER take your handgun out of a holster, you had better be legally justified in using it fully and immediately.

I only half-heartedly agree with this. Drawing your weapon still leaves you at the second stage of escalation which for you non-military folks is presence. If I tell someone to "Stop, move back." and they move forward again, I'll draw on them and let them know they need to "Stop, and move back."

I'm not naive to believe that this does not escalate the situation and that you -should- be prepared to use it if you're drawing it. But at the same time, drawing a weapon does two things: 1. It lets them know you're armed and 2. It lets them know you're prepared to go the next step if situation is going to fully escalate and the first round most likely won't be flung to the side, cause you're already on target.

Like many of you (but not all) I've done my time, and I would much prefer no situation than a bad one.

But simply because I draw a firearm doesn't mean I need to unload the clip into them and be prepared for reload just-in-case ...

[jblosser]

But simply because I draw a firearm doesn't mean I need to unload the clip into them and be prepared for reload just-in-case ...

I stand by the second part of my statement that you quoted: If you draw your holstered weapon you had better be legally justified in using it immediately and fully.

"Escalation" in the real world (read: non-military setting) is a no-no. IF you have to shoot the weapon and you escalated the situation, you're in trouble.

The above applies to non-Castle situations; i.e. you're not in a dwelling or vehicle.

[Disclaimer]

If you're charged with brandishing a weapon, or whatever the charge is... how does the arresting officer know you actually brandished it?

It's really a 'he said-she said' case if there are only two witnesses right? Yourself and the person you brandished against... so does the officer make the assumption you DID branish the weapon, cite you, and let the courts figure it out later; or is this an "innocent until proven guilty" case?

[TMCGRAW]

Civilians that have no idea of a fight-or-flight situation where they -think- they're prepared to take another persons life simply because they own a gun and went through a safety course and know some laws, are the exact reason I have a problem with the conceal-carry programs.

Your mind changes when you're put into a situation of necessity. This has been the on going battle for law enforcement officers since the beginning. "They have to make a decision in seconds that a court gets to pour over and analyze for years if they want to." --- Like anything else you can be trained on what to do in what situation, but you're not trained by reading a book on how to do it, watching some movies, or going over in-home techniques.

If I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, and 'brandishing a weapon' makes me feel safer and protects those in my area from initial harm. Then let the perpetrator make the case of: 'I was walking up to the guy asking for money, he told me to get away from him, I didn't listen and kept moving towards him and he pulled out a weapon' --- of course the outcome is extreme and has probably an infinite number of variables.

Put looking at pulling a firearm as the reason to use it, or not pulling it because you feel you have to start squeezing off rounds if you pull your gun out is a horrible mentality to keep.

You need to be TRAINED for your instance, ALERT to your surroundings and options, FLEXIBLE to situations as they develop. Most encounters are not: You pull out weapon --> Person flees for their life/you have to shoot them nine times/person drags you through judicial systems.

You carry to protect you and your surroundings, so long as your mindset is in the protection of you and your surroundings without the preemptive thought of hurting people. I wouldn't stand by and watch a woman/man be raped anymore than I would draw on a guy/girl getting loud with wife/husband.

[jblosser]

Dunno how you get charged if the only people present during "the act" were you and the other guy. Maybe the other "victim" (not you) has to report it/press charges, and then the over-zealous Assistant D.A. with aspirations of grandeur decides to take the ball and run with it?

The old adage "I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers" ? HA! Not a chance <I> want to take.

I will stick with what my attorney/instructor taught me; Seeing as how he wrote the Ohio law that relaxed the car carry rules and allowed bar carry he should know better than most.

As to the event that triggered this thread - the guy, in a vehicle, getting charged with menacing. According to the law, the Castle presumption <should> have applied. Not sure how his attorney blew it, but it <should> get overturned on appeal.

[crb]

In one state I can tell you the victim must press the charges. The case I'm involved in is basically a he said he said. The prosecutor takes the evidence and statements and decides whether or not there is a case. The prosector in my case did charge him. How did I know he had a firearm if I didn't see it. He admits to drawing the weapon, but does not admit to pointing it at me. I still don't know the final outcome quite yet.

[C-bus]

Civilians that have no idea of a fight-or-flight situation where they -think- they're prepared to take another persons life simply because they own a gun and went through a safety course and know some laws, are the exact reason I have a problem with the conceal-carry programs.

Your mind changes when you're put into a situation of necessity. This has been the on going battle for law enforcement officers since the beginning. "They have to make a decision in seconds that a court gets to pour over and analyze for years if they want to." --- Like anything else you can be trained on what to do in what situation, but you're not trained by reading a book on how to do it, watching some movies, or going over in-home techniques.

If I'm in a situation where I feel threatened, and 'brandishing a weapon' makes me feel safer and protects those in my area from initial harm. Then let the perpetrator make the case of: 'I was walking up to the guy asking for money, he told me to get away from him, I didn't listen and kept moving towards him and he pulled out a weapon' --- of course the outcome is extreme and has probably an infinite number of variables.

Put looking at pulling a firearm as the reason to use it, or not pulling it because you feel you have to start squeezing off rounds if you pull your gun out is a horrible mentality to keep.

You need to be TRAINED for your instance, ALERT to your surroundings and options, FLEXIBLE to situations as they develop. Most encounters are not: You pull out weapon --> Person flees for their life/you have to shoot them nine times/person drags you through judicial systems.

You carry to protect you and your surroundings, so long as your mindset is in the protection of you and your surroundings without the preemptive thought of hurting people. I wouldn't stand by and watch a woman/man be raped anymore than I would draw on a guy/girl getting loud with wife/husband.

1) thank you for your service

2) bill of rights protects me from those in service who believe that only those in service should have rights.

[TMCGRAW]

1) thank you for your service

2) bill of rights protects me from those in service who believe that only those in service should have rights.

I kind of knew this was gonna happen. I know how it 'sounds' in text format, I just don't have any way to make it sound better. My problem isn't necessarily with people having the right to carry a firearm, it's that the people who have the right don't necessarily have the training. They're taught the legal aspects of it, which is important, but they're not taught things of a different type of importance. I'm NOT against civilians having guns (it's been proven time and time again to be more of an asset than a problem) I just WISH there was solid training for those who qualify to carry them that goes beyond operation, safety, and when you're allowed to shoot people (legislative).

I served on a team where one of the biggest eye openers for me was in the training when they said 'it's like paintball, but with consequences' 15 minutes into the training you've killed four civilians, a hostage, out right murdered two people who were compliant in their own way, and escalated a drunk from a point of passive-non-compliance to were deadly force was a need to protect your life --- In all cases we were wrong and we were serving on teams of six. Our instructors were a F.B.I. trainer, two U.S. Marshal's, and a former Marine recon sniper, all impressive histories, all with impressive scenarios and sea-stories of what-if scenario's.

MY favorite quote from it all is: "When it goes down and you've been put into a position of you or them has to die, get out of the situation, don't turn your back, if they lock you into a position where you absolutely can not get away from them and de-escalate ... It's time to get to work, your family is waiting for you at home." --- Not for the drastic twist at the end but I always thought it exemplified the right mind-set you need to be in.

The most important thing I learned through all of it is all you can do is train and train and train and be prepared to use it and hope you don't have to, because when it comes down to it, who is going to push the furthest, and if you're prepared to go the whole distance, you had better be justified (as was mentioned). I had to apply more of the training than I ever cared for, but without the training, I'd be dead many times over, or worse, other people would have been.

But the ideal scenario will never present itself and (some) people think they're going to hear a noise in their house late at night, it'll wake them from their slumber and they'll be in a mindset to 'protect' their family with the loaded gun they keep next to their bed at night. Their going to sneak down stairs and be in a mindset where they can make the right choices given their scenario.

It's just not realistic to think that a situation will present itself and you're going to have all this time to think, analyze, decide if you need to draw or not to shoot and/or kill someone. I literally feel heart-ache for anyone who has HAD to use their firearm to defend themselves or others because that's absolutely not a easy decision to make in this world, and I respect everyone who has civilian or military, just wish you all had more training (civilian and military).

Sorry these posts are so long haha, this is a hard thing for me to communicate over the internetz.

[crb]

I kind of knew this was gonna happen. I know how it 'sounds' in text format, I just don't have any way to make it sound better. My problem isn't necessarily with people having the right to carry a firearm, it's that the people who have the right don't necessarily have the training. They're taught the legal aspects of it, which is important, but they're not taught things of a different type of importance. I'm NOT against civilians having guns (it's been proven time and time again to be more of an asset than a problem) I just WISH there was solid training for those who qualify to carry them that goes beyond operation, safety, and when you're allowed to shoot people (legislative).

I served on a team where one of the biggest eye openers for me was in the training when they said 'it's like paintball, but with consequences' 15 minutes into the training you've killed four civilians, a hostage, out right murdered two people who were compliant in their own way, and escalated a drunk from a point of passive-non-compliance to were deadly force was a need to protect your life --- In all cases we were wrong and we were serving on teams of six. Our instructors were a F.B.I. trainer, two U.S. Marshal's, and a former Marine recon sniper, all impressive histories, all with impressive scenarios and sea-stories of what-if scenario's.

MY favorite quote from it all is: "When it goes down and you've been put into a position of you or them has to die, get out of the situation, don't turn your back, if they lock you into a position where you absolutely can not get away from them and de-escalate ... It's time to get to work, your family is waiting for you at home." --- Not for the drastic twist at the end but I always thought it exemplified the right mind-set you need to be in.

The most important thing I learned through all of it is all you can do is train and train and train and be prepared to use it and hope you don't have to, because when it comes down to it, who is going to push the furthest, and if you're prepared to go the whole distance, you had better be justified (as was mentioned). I had to apply more of the training than I ever cared for, but without the training, I'd be dead many times over, or worse, other people would have been.

But the ideal scenario will never present itself and (some) people think they're going to hear a noise in their house late at night, it'll wake them from their slumber and they'll be in a mindset to 'protect' their family with the loaded gun they keep next to their bed at night. Their going to sneak down stairs and be in a mindset where they can make the right choices given their scenario.

It's just not realistic to think that a situation will present itself and you're going to have all this time to think, analyze, decide if you need to draw or not to shoot and/or kill someone. I literally feel heart-ache for anyone who has HAD to use their firearm to defend themselves or others because that's absolutely not a easy decision to make in this world, and I respect everyone who has civilian or military, just wish you all had more training (civilian and military).

Sorry these posts are so long haha, this is a hard thing for me to communicate over the internetz.

I think your point came across better this time. This is exactly why I like to train in different positions and I practice malfunction drills.

Thank you for your service.

[kawi kid]

If you're charged with brandishing a weapon, or whatever the charge is... how does the arresting officer know you actually brandished it?

It's really a 'he said-she said' case if there are only two witnesses right? Yourself and the person you brandished against... so does the officer make the assumption you DID branish the weapon, cite you, and let the courts figure it out later; or is this an "innocent until proven guilty" case?

How would the other party know you had a gun unless you did brandish it?

[Disclaimer]

How would the other party know you had a gun unless you did brandish it?

Poor concealment (printed)? Skinny jeans? It really doesn't matter how someone figured out if you're carrying or not... just because someone is carrying a weapon doesn't mean they brandished it.

That's a big assumption there kawi.