I guess I'm driving from now on! From Ohio AG CHL Handbook:
This is a discussion on Ohio man claims castle in car gun case within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I guess I'm driving from now on! From Ohio AG CHL Handbook: via Tapatalk...
I guess I'm driving from now on! From Ohio AG CHL Handbook:
"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" ~ Paul Harvey
"He was fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man."
Ordered to stay away from the man who tried to open the door of his girls car? What is this world coming to?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable- JFK
Fortes Fortuna Juvat
Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor
It appears the defendant failed to convince the judge that his belief he was under an attack which merited the use of deadly force was honest and reasonable.
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William T. Sherman
Probably a lot more to this story than we know- "The odd twist is the car’s owner, Sarah Geers, knew both men – she was Edward’s girlfriend and Taylor’s ex-girlfriend. Both men testified at Edward’s November trial they didn’t know each other at the time." When you involve love,lost love,jealousy and all that mess,you just never know what might happen. Seems like the girlfriend would really press the issue that the current boyfriend did not point the weapon at anyone. Maybe she ain't so sweet.
Pain is the best teacher,but nobody wants to go to his class.
When the past smothers the present, there is only desperation. When the future absorbs the present, life stands still. In either case a decision must be made because you only live now and you are only what you are now.
Here, they were about to pass the Castle Doctrine, and then went in and added some extra to it... then passed it. The "extra" was, the Castle Doctrine extends to any vehicle you are legally in, and someone attempts to enter it illegally or without permission. In other words, it would be no different legally... than if they were illegally entering your home while it was occupied. It is assumed under the law, that if you enter a house or vehicle illegally while it is occupied, then you mean the occupants harm.
I'm glad they did what they did, it took some "question" out of things and made them much clearer.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Under no circumstances would I have ever gone out with this woman to begin with:
The odd twist is the car’s owner, Sarah Geers, knew both men – she was Edward’s girlfriend and Taylor’s ex-girlfriend. Both men testified at Edward’s November trial they didn’t know each other at the time.
For all you folks who sit up at night dreaming of ways you can justifiably pull out your heater, scratch this scenario from the list.
Fairly standard stuff, that. There still must be an attack, it presumes a breach of barriers (else it's not really imminent), and there must be a reasonable and credible threat of death or serious injury. Lacking details, it's hard to comment on whether the statutes' requirements were met in this guy's case.OH AG CHL Handbook:
However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is not a license to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is attacked, without fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death.
As for the "Castle" claim, it sure does seem ludicrous that a person has a right to defend against deadly attack in one's own car but not in another's, as if a deadliness of an attack has somehow changed into something else merely because of location.
Has anyone found a link to details on the original case??
Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine
The articles don't really give a whole lot of details. Too many questions remain. As an Ohio resident, I'm really interested in how this one turns out. I guess in the future, I'll be sure to drive my own truck or my wife's car! I don't intend to ride with any friends in their vehicles unless they also carry--then it would be up to them to protect us from potential carjackers while I just sit back and watch. I guess all I could do legally would be to call 911, since I wouldn't be covered by the law if I were to draw my own weapon. However, if the carjacker managed to get the door open, had a weapon and was about to kill or inflict grave bodily harm on the occupants of the vehicle, then I could draw my weapon and shoot them "to stop the threat" and I wouldn't have to rely on "castle doctrine" at all!
Live to ride, ride to live. Harley Road King And keep a .45 handy Kimber Custom TLE II
I guess the way I see this you do not need to justify anything by proving deadly intent of the person attempting entry. As I asked (rhetorically) earlier how long do you need to wait before you begin to draw your weapon?
Now I am asking for real. If you were the one sitting in the car engrossed in a phone conversation and you were surprised by an adult male attempting to enter your vehicle.
Option one: you sit there and wait to see if the individual continues to try to gain entry.
Option two: as stated earlier by another post even if he gains entry he does not have a weapon visible so you still wait to see what his intent is.
Option three: when the individual attempts to gain entry you change position in the seat and access your weapon, either drawing the weapon or keeping your hand on the grip.
Of course if it is some little old lady that mistakes your car for hers no real threat no response. An unknown adult male attempting to gain entry to my car I have to assume he is not trying to get in and chat about the weather. He may see a weapon.
I think an interesting study would be to sit in a car with your carry gun (UNLOADED) and have someone enter the vehicle from the other side. Now try to draw your gun and get on target before the other person is on top of you. Since you know it is going to happen you may have a chance but add in a second or more to account for the surprise/startle reaction and I say there is no way you get to an IWB in a standard 3-4 o'clock position.
This seems to me to justify the draw or exposing of a weapon upon the attempt at entry.
I am sure I will get flamed with people saying they carry cross draw in the car, special holsters, etc. Keep the focus on the info at hand, you are driving another persons car so you are carrying as you normally do. How long will you wait to determine the intent. Not shoot and kill the person but draw and prepare.
The 1st District like the Supreme Court in Ohio is pretty conservative, so let's hope for a god decision. BTW, Joe Deter's mother in law is a jusge in that appellate court.
I'd rather be lucky than good any day
There's nothing that will change someone's moral outlook quicker than cash in large sums.
Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
Maybe that is the way the law works in nutcase states like Ohio, but try breaking into an occupied car in South Carolina---just try.