Ohio man claims castle in car gun case

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; http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/jun/...se-ar-1060613/ What's your thoughts? Man was riding with gf when a guy walked up and tried to open his door. He pulled his gun but ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Ohio man claims castle in car gun case

  1. #1
    Member Array HCF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    62

    Ohio man claims castle in car gun case

    http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2012/jun/...se-ar-1060613/

    What's your thoughts? Man was riding with gf when a guy walked up and tried to open his door. He pulled his gun but didn't use it and was charged menacing and $100. He's licensed ccw holder

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    6,514
    There is not a lot of info but if I had to guess it Looks like the guy pulling on the door handle beat the guy in the car to the 911 call.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,749
    I don't know the laws in Ohio, but I know the laws in several other states and they cover whosever car your legaly in..........
    "Just getting a concealed carry permit means you haven't commited a crime yet. CCP holders commit crimes." Daniel Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, quoted on Fox & Friends, 8 Jul, 2008

    (Sometimes) "a fight avioded is a fight won." ... claude clay

  5. #4
    Member Array Doubledown's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301
    Would you even need Castle Doctrine? If someone unexpectedly comes up and attempts to gain entry to your occupied vehicle how long does a "reasonable person" wait to see what the intent is. Maybe he is there to give you a $1,000,000.00 check but I doubt it. Given the confinement of the interior of a car it takes longer to draw so waiting until he busts a window is a little late. Since we don't know anything about the circumstances I don't think saying he should have driven away etc is practical.

    The report, if you can call it that, said Castle applies to your home and vehicle. It seems they are splitting hairs since it was his girlfriends car, I guess this shows how far an anti gun prosecutor will go to find a charge.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,566
    I think that people should be able to counter sue the prosecutors for their court costs, attorney fees, and lost wages in stupid cases like this. Maybe if the people began to see how much money was being wasted on these kinds of cases, they would put pressure on their DAs and prosecutors to quit pursuing these types of cases.
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    9,075
    Here is another article with a bit more background:
    Court to hear precedent-setting 'castle' case | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com
    "Who are the ones that we kept in charge? Killers, thieves, and lawyers"

    Tom Waits, God's Away on Business

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    20,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I think that people should be able to counter sue the prosecutors for their court costs, attorney fees, and lost wages in stupid cases like this. Maybe if the people began to see how much money was being wasted on these kinds of cases, they would put pressure on their DAs and prosecutors to quit pursuing these types of cases.
    Counter suit should not even be required. If found you were with in your rights to the action you took, the court should award all reasonable expensse automatically.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  9. #8
    Member Array DblTapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Yulee, FL.
    Posts
    43
    Funny, but why was the individual who attempted to unlawfully enter the vehicle not charged with a crime? I would put my money on this being overturned.
    I want, what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had, wants! For our country to love us as much as we love it! That's what I want!
    - Rambo, John J.

  10. #9
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,397
    This is IMO, one of the still remaining goofy parts of Ohio self defense laws. We are making gradual progress, and it gets better every year or so. But there are some parts of it that are just so specific, it can cause issues like this.

    In Ohio, it must be your car, or a car owned by a family member, in order for castle doctrine to apply. A girlfriend doesn't count as immediate family, so that is why this case exists. IF it was his sister's car, he probably would have been covered by Castle Doctrine, although IANAL.

    Another of those provisions is that you can carry on school property while in a vehicle in the immediate process of picking up or dropping off a child. It doesn't say it has to be your child. But, it specifically says child, so a spouse who may work at the school wouldn't count.

    Although if you look at the legal definition of a "loaded" gun in Ohio, or the paragraph of the ORC where it says you can use rest stops along the highway, you can see how convoluted the law can be. But we are working on making it better. I am going to be paying attention to this case, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

    Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
    NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array jblives2ride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    896
    There shouldn't even be a case, all this is going to do is establish a new precedednt for future cases, if he felt his life was threatened and pulled/ showed his gun he was perfectly legal...the fact of who's car it is doesn't matter..if i'm in my friends car as a paasenger and someone threatens/(he preceived threat) i'm pulling a gun, he has the right to protect himself whereever he is and the car will not be an issue
    I would rather live my life as if there is a God,
    And die to find out there isn't, than live my life
    As if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
    God Bless

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array NH_Esau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    865
    Two things:
    - Article says "he lifted his .40-caliber handgun partially from the holster... to get the man's attention." If that's what he said to the police when they showed up, he was headed to trouble. If he was in fear for his life - BG had the drop on him, car was off/in park, he couldn't get away... then it would've been a whole different ballgame.
    - What defines ownership in OH? What if it's a lease? Good plug for cash money!

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,166
    Seriously few details in the article.

    ... a guy walked up and tried to open his door. He pulled his gun but didn't use it and was charged menacing and $100.
    Justifiable? Hinges on the state's self-defense laws, as to whether a person must have a legitimate believe his/her life is at serious risk of death or serious injury (presuming that's the legal standard, in that state). Reality is, putting a hand on a door, even attempting to move the lock/latch/handle, doesn't in and of itself constitute a deadly threat given that the car door was still a barrier not yet breached.

    The right to protect oneself from deadly threat is fairly strongly supported in most states, yet at the point of handling the door latch the most threatening thing from this stranger (barring other factors) may well have been his body odor.

    There's a reason Ayoob and others promote the AOJ (Deadly Force Triangle) standard at minimum, requiring Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy to exist, and that a person be in imminent and unavoidable threat of death or crippling injury, before a person can legitimately claim to be at such risk. Any fool (criminal) has the ability to get through a car window. But the opportunity to cause death/injury to the occupant would in the absence of a weapon require the stranger to get close enough to the occupant to commit such an act. Lacking the opportunity, given the existing car door barrier and the apparent lack of deadly weapon, there was no real jeopardy at that moment.

    Easy to say, from this comfy armchair that I'm sitting in, as I don't know the specifics about this particular stranger's demeanor, how energetic/violent the attempt was to unlock the door handle, nor what (if anything) seriously threatening was said or done by the stranger. These elements could change everything.

    Hypothetically, imagine a few simple variations on the situation ... and you're the stranger approaching the car:

    1. You come up to a car just like your own, wrenching on the handle when it won't unlock, only to ultimately look up and realize there's an occupant who has just displayed a gun to warn you off.

    2. You come up to a car that you know isn't your own (as the criminal you are), imagining you might score an unlocked vehicle, only to find there's an occupant who has just displayed a gun to warn you off.

    3. You come up to a car you know isn't your own (as the criminal you are), you notice the occupants, and you then proceed to verbally threaten death and violently attempt to get through the door ... up to the point the occupant displays a gun to warn you off.


    Three utterly different sets of details. IMO, only in the last situation in which there's overt threats/violence with imminent likelihood of deadly attempt if the door is breached does there constitute sufficient justification to legitimately believe a deadly threat exists. Apparently this state's laws agree with that.

    As for "Castle" law, one may have the statutes back up one's right to be wherever one has a legal right to be, but STILL a person needs to have a legitimate and justifiable belief that death or serious injury is imminent.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,566
    Quote Originally Posted by NH_Esau View Post
    Two things:
    - Article says "he lifted his .40-caliber handgun partially from the holster... to get the man's attention." If that's what he said to the police when they showed up, he was headed to trouble.!
    I was wondering whether he said this, or if that is just what the journalist wrote.
    "All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife." - Daniel Boone

  15. #14
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,397
    There shouldn't even be a case, all this is going to do is establish a new precedednt for future cases, if he felt his life was threatened and pulled/ showed his gun he was perfectly legal...the fact of who's car it is doesn't matter..if i'm in my friends car as a paasenger and someone threatens/(he preceived threat) i'm pulling a gun, he has the right to protect himself whereever he is and the car will not be an issue
    Maybe so in Texas, but for now, in Ohio, it does matter whose car it is. Maybe it will set a precedent, and build case law that the owner of the vehicle is irrelevant to castle doctrine in Ohio. That would be the best case scenario, but we will see what happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Seriously few details in the article.

    Justifiable? Hinges on the state's self-defense laws, as to whether a person must have a legitimate believe his/her life is at serious risk of death or serious injury (presuming that's the legal standard, in that state). Reality is, putting a hand on a door, even attempting to move the lock/latch/handle, doesn't in and of itself constitute a deadly threat given that the car door was still a barrier not yet breached.
    Bear in mind once again that I am not a lawyer. But, my brief synopsis of what the AG's CHL handbook says might give you the right to use SD in Ohio could go something like this:

    The defendant must not be at fault for creating the situation
    The defendant must have a reasonable and honest belief of imminent serious bodily harm or death
    The defendant must fulfill the duty to retreat, unless doing so jeopardizes the safety of the defendant

    Castle Doctrine in Ohio mostly modifies the duty to retreat part, and makes it so that there is not a duty to retreat if threatened with deadly force in one's home or vehicle (or that of an immediate family member).

    Aside from some of the goofy stuff like the "immediate family member" bit, really the SD law in Ohio is rather reasonable IMHO.

    If any of you might like to read the CHL book yourself, so that you see what the issue in this case could be, you can find it here: http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/f...s-Booklet.aspx
    JDE101 likes this.
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

    Former, USMC 0311, OIF/OEF vet
    NRA Pistol/Rifle/Shotgun/Reloading Instructor, RSO, Ohio CHL Instructor

  16. #15
    Sponsor
    Array luvmy40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Youngstown, OH
    Posts
    1,419
    I'll double down on everything that buckeye.45 said and add that it really doesn't surprise me that this occurred in one of the 3Cs(Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati), The worst liberal, anti 2A areas in a fairly liberal state. We have made great progress in the last decade in the 2A area but for all that, Ohio is a Dem. stronghold.

    In my neck of the woods(very rural) the local constabulary would have chastised me for not beating the hell out of someone who tried to open my car door uninvited.
    atctimmy and JDE101 like this.
    T*A*N*S*T*A*A*F*L
    The best things in life are not free.
    They are paid for with the blood of brave men and women!
    M&P Forum
    Ohioans For Concealed Carry
    Holsters

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

beating ccw case cincinnati
,
ccw court cases, ohio
,

ccw menacing

,
ccw ohio court cases
,

ccw ohio open display in car

,

gun case for car

,
gun cases ohio
,
how to beat ccw case
,

mnow with the castle doctrine can i have a gun in car when picking up child from school

,
ohio castle law unlocked vehicle
,
ohio court cases ccw self defense
,

ohio gun case law

Click on a term to search for related topics.