by Chad D. Baus
Any discussion about the claims being made by opponents to the portion of HB 203 that seeks to reform Ohio's self-defense law needs to begin with a simple explanation of how the law would actually change.
According to the individuals who offered testimony at yesterday's, the following legislative change would make Ohio into a racist "shoot first" state:
Sec. 2901.09(B)For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a personwho 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.
Despite this easy-to-understand truth, opponents of Rep. Terry Johnson's (R-McDermott) bill lined up at yesterday's committee hearing, repeatedly comparing a Florida law erroneously blamed in the Trayvon Martin shooting because the Ohio proposal would expand the circumstances under which an individual does not have a "duty to retreat" from a threatening situation. >>more<<
No comments:
Post a Comment