kawi kid Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 No assumption, just a question. I would assume its going to be dependent on the individual situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 It gives someone and awful easy out to give someone else a really bad day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 No assumption, just a question. I would assume its going to be dependent on the individual situation.Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 It gives someone and awful easy out to give someone else a really bad day.When they start looking at people involved and one is a concealed license holder and the other has a record of multiple assaults or robberies the police will look at it differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) Sure, because everyone that makes false accusations has a criminal record a mile long.That's why we don't even need a law on the books against making false accusations because only known criminals would make them.On the flip side, we know all CCW holders are 100% moral and ethical angels that should be believed 100% of the time.The sarcasm is thick above. Edited June 8, 2012 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I believe the person who pulled the gun on me is/was s ccw holder. What helped my case was I'm from a different state, didn't know him, and we were both driving down the road so I couldn't see it print. Plus I could somewhat describe the gun. Not make/model, but approx size, type, color.I can tell you the case I'm involved in the charge is unlawful use of a weapon, a class D felony I believe. This case is not in Ohio though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMCGRAW Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Sure, because everyone that makes false accusations has a criminal record a mile long.That's why we don't even need a law on the books against making false accusations because only known criminals would make them.On the flip side, we know all CCW holders are 100% moral and ethical angels that should be believed 100% of the time.The sarcasm is thick above.I actually laughed out loud at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 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 wasIt'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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Sure, because everyone that makes false accusations has a criminal record a mile long.That's why we don't even need a law on the books against making false accusations because only known criminals would make them.On the flip side, we know all CCW holders are 100% moral and ethical angels that should be believed 100% of the time.The sarcasm is thick above.I really have no idea what you are trying to argue with me about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I really have no idea what you are trying to argue with me about?v---------------------------------------------------------------------vIf 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?That's still the question, and without making assumptions because if you apply one standard, it has to be applied across the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 I really have no idea what you are trying to argue with me about?Look at the source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Girls, girls, you're both pretty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 v---------------------------------------------------------------------vThat's still the question, and without making assumptions because if you apply one standard, it has to be applied across the board.There are many risks involved with carrying a gun and being falsely accused of brandishing is just one of them I guess. Printing is not illegal and even though skinny jeans on certain individuals should be they aren't illegal either. Could it happen? Sure. But I believe there is enough officers out there that would look at the situation and evaluate it properly. Also it comes down to who calls the law first. If someone tries to rob me and I draw on them then they have a change of heart and run off. I'm.still calling the police and giving a description of the guy and a good account of what happened. That same guy might tun off bitter that his easy victim got the upper hand on him and wanna get revenge by calling the cops and stating I pulled a gun on him. If I called first and established myself as the victim first I have the upper hand.Read the guide to a safer urban living by Alex Haddox it is very informative on situations like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 There are many risks involved with carrying a gun and being falsely accused of brandishing is just one of them I guess. Printing is not illegal and even though skinny jeans on certain individuals should be they aren't illegal either. Could it happen? Sure. But I believe there is enough officers out there that would look at the situation and evaluate it properly.Sure there are risks, I'm not debating that. But, you're putting an awful lot of clout into an officer who isn't an attorney and doesn't necessarily KNOW the law, (s)he's there to make a judgment call at the time and let the big wigs figure it out later. Even if you're found innocent, you really wanna spend a couple uncompensated hours of your day in the clink over it? What happens if that judgment call doesn't match what actually happened?Also it comes down to who calls the law first. If someone tries to rob me and I draw on them then they have a change of heart and run off. I'm.still calling the police and giving a description of the guy and a good account of what happened. That same guy might tun off bitter that his easy victim got the upper hand on him and wanna get revenge by calling the cops and stating I pulled a gun on him. If I called first and established myself as the victim first I have the upper hand.I woudn't put a lot of legal faith in the "I called first"-defense either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Sure there are risks, I'm not debating that. But, you're putting an awful lot of clout into an officer who isn't an attorney and doesn't necessarily KNOW the law, (s)he's there to make a judgment call at the time and let the big wigs figure it out later. Even if you're found innocent, you really wanna spend a couple uncompensated hours of your day in the clink over it? What happens if that judgment call doesn't match what actually happened?I woudn't put a lot of legal faith in the "I called first"-defense either.The reward of being safe out weighs the risk for me. And I never said the i called first theory is anything near legal defense. It establishes the yourself as the victim. No wrong do'r is going to call the police to let them know he pulled a gun. I know I'm not doing this argument justice. Again read the book. It covers all that stuff and explains it way better than I can. 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.