Want the facts concerning the proposed change to Ohio's ‘duty to retreat'? Don't look to the media or opponents of HB 203.
Submitted by cbaus on October 9, 2013 - 8:00am.
by Chad D. Baus
In the lead-up to the return of the Ohio General Assembly from their summer break and the opening of hearings on several pro-gun rights bills, certain individuals and groups, along with their media accomplices, have ramped up their efforts to paint one particular provision in Rep. Terry Johnson's House Bill 203 as a "Stand Your Ground" bill. These groups, which have always opposed Second Amendment rights, think they might have finally stumbled on a way to stop what has for them become loss after loss after loss as Ohio has slowly worked to restore gun rights over the past decade.
Despite their loss in a Florida court room, these groups believe they may have achieved one victory in Zimmerman-Martin media saga: re-branding so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws as racist. It is now apparent that these groups are seeking to export this tactic to other states, including Ohio.
HB 203 seeks to make many improvements, but the one change that has these anti-gun rights advocates the most incensed is the removal of the legal "duty to retreat" before using lethal force to defend against a life-threatening attack. According to the individuals getting so much attention recently in the Ohio media, the following legislative change would make Ohio into a racist "shoot first" state:
(B)For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person's residencehas 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 anotherif that person is in a place that the person lawfully has a right to be.
Even with this change, a person claiming self-defense must still be able to prove both that he or she was not at fault in creating the situation, that they had reasonable grounds to believe (objective facts) and an honest belief (a subjective belief that the objective facts amounted to) an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, and that the only way to escape this imminent danger was using lethal/deadly force. Period.
Pretty obvious why the media have not and will not publish these facts, isn't it?
This simple little paragraph what these anti-gun rights extremists are erroneously calling a "Shoot First", "License to Kill," "Stand Your Ground" provision. That's it. That's all. Easy to publish in articles to put some perspective on the claims like the following: MORE FROM BFA