Ohio Expands "Stand Your Ground" to "Make My Day"

The best way to protect against crooks is to strengthen the rights of law-abiding people.

Darkhorse said:

The best way to protect against crooks is to strengthen the rights of law-abiding people.

Click to expand...

...this seems more about "Who's still alive to tell the story" rather than "who's rights are strengthened.".
tulc(just a thought)

Aldebaran said:

The rioters who don't like it when things don't turn out their way will definately not like this!

Click to expand...

...doesn't this mean the people who are protesting can also bring guns and "stand their ground"? So again, doesn't it it all get down to who's still alive the tell the story?
tulc(is just wondering)

So it's okay to gun somebody down in Ohio as long as you can say you were provoked with a straight face.

Glad I don't live there any more.

Aldebaran said:

If leftist rioters can gun people down for supporting Trump, and can burn down police stations with police officers inside, and actually try to justify their actions by saying they just want to be heard, then gunning someone down who is engaging in such activities could certainly be said to be "provoking" it.

Click to expand...

Left, right, who cares.

Aldebaran said:

Those who support Leftist anarchy, violence and destruction certainly don't--at least as long as they're the ones doing it rather than having to suffer the consequences of it.

Click to expand...

So with that law what happens when some black guy shoots police officer because he was afraid of getting shot which can be certainly be shown not to be unreasonable fear over there ?

Working as intended ?

Seems like you guys never follow the logic to finish line.

tulc said:

...doesn't this mean the people who are protesting can also bring guns and "stand their ground"? So again, doesn't it it all get down to who's still alive the tell the story?
tulc(is just wondering)

Click to expand...

I suggest that everyone has to wear bodycams all the time.

Nithavela said:

I suggest that everyone has to wear bodycams all the time.

Click to expand...

Preferably on forehead or right hand with active body cam needed for any financial transaction.

That should stir things up a bit.

Aldebaran said:

Those who support Leftist anarchy, violence and destruction certainly don't--at least as long as they're the ones doing it rather than having to suffer the consequences of it.

Click to expand...

Your partisan sniping is amusing, but nonsensical as a reply to me.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

So with that law what happens when some black guy shoots police officer because he was afraid of getting shot which can be certainly be shown not to be unreasonable fear over there ?

Working as intended ?

Seems like you guys never follow the logic to finish line.

Click to expand...

You'd have to think it would eliminate all no-knock warrants in Ohio

"I heard a bunch of people kicking in my door, I feared for my life so I started shooting."

Trogdor the Burninator said:

You'd have to think it would eliminate all no-knock warrants in Ohio

"I heard a bunch of people kicking in my door, I feared for my life so I started shooting."

Click to expand...

Right. If someone kicked my door in aiming guns at me then I don't care who they're claiming to be, I'd probably be retaliating instinctively in self-defence.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

So with that law what happens when some black guy shoots police officer because he was afraid of getting shot which can be certainly be shown not to be unreasonable fear over there ?

Working as intended ?

Seems like you guys never follow the logic to finish line.

Click to expand...

In law, there is a premise called "presumption of order", which (in your example) states that an officer of the law is presumed to be acting in accordance with the law. Therefore, attacking such an officer due to fear of getting shot carries an extremely high burden of proof, since the officer's actions are presumed to be legal.

Of course, the officer's actions are not always legal, but taking the route you suggest is almost certain to end badly for you, legally.

tulc said:

...doesn't this mean the people who are protesting can also bring guns and "stand their ground"? So again, doesn't it it all get down to who's still alive the tell the story?
tulc(is just wondering)

Click to expand...

That's why law relies on evidence, among other things.

Apart from a few token stories (like the Zimmerman case and a few others), I don't know why stand your ground laws are so controversial TBH.

If someone broke into a woman's house with a hatchet, and tried to attack her, and she shot them...I would assume most people would see that as justified.

Why is it more controversial if that exact same scenario happens in a grocery store or in a mall parking lot?

essentialsaltes said:

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill Monday that expands incidents in which a person can defend themselves under a “stand your ground” law.

Senate Bill 175 states it’s no longer necessary to prove a gun owner considered the possibility of retreat before using force, so long as they “reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.”

The bill also eliminates the requirement that a person be in their home or vehicle in order to stand their ground; the new law applies wherever a gun owner has the legal right to be.

Click to expand...

The summary of the law in question states:
to grant civil immunity to nonprofit corporations for certain injuries, deaths, or losses resulting from the carrying of handguns and to expand the locations at which a person has no duty to retreat before using force under both civil and criminal law.

The exception would be unless it was malicious or with malice.

So, if you work at a non-profit and someone comes in to threatened people - and you? If the person is a legal gun owner they have the right to NOT stand down in defense of themselves or others. It also grants the non-profit immunity from those actions.

It also goes into examples of the above are you are at work. If you are at a friend's house, or grandmothers - or their vehicles, etc. You have to lawfully be allowed - or at those places if you are claiming self defense. Offers immunity to those parties (friend's home, grandmother, their vehicles).

Basically, the state needs to prove that the person used force with malicious intent or malice.

I'm not completely done with reading all over - but those are the basics I have read so far.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

Preferably on forehead or right hand with active body cam needed for any financial transaction.

That should stir things up a bit.

Click to expand...

Not on the right hand. They'll need that to always hold their loaded and cocked pistol so that they're always ready when a good guy with a gun is needed.