Toledo woman stops burglary with her firearms, Good, and Ugly

This is a discussion on Toledo woman stops burglary with her firearms, Good, and Ugly within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Toledo woman fires on burglars, says she has no compassion - WTOL.com - Toledo's News Leader | She grabbed her gun that she always keeps ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By archer51

Thread: Toledo woman stops burglary with her firearms, Good, and Ugly

  1. #1
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,553

    Toledo woman stops burglary with her firearms, Good, and Ugly

    Toledo woman fires on burglars, says she has no compassion - WTOL.com - Toledo's News Leader |

    She grabbed her gun that she always keeps in her trunk and her clip that she always keeps in her purse.
    "When he jumped out the window I was able to fire a warning shot," Williams said.
    "If he didn't look as young as he looked, I just would have shot him. I wouldn't have thought twice. I just would have shot him."
    Williams said she earned her permit to carry a concealed weapon in 2003, a week after she became a victim of a home invasion.
    Personally, I see a fair bit wrong with this. First she keeps her pistol in her trunk, and her ammo in her purse. She just waltzed on in when she knew something was wrong, which I'm not sure is covered by the Castle Doctrine, as it is escalating the situation. She went in to protect her property. She fired a warning shot, nothing in the article says where the warning shot wound up. And it seems to me like she might need a refresher course on Ohio's deadly force laws. Actually I'd like to know what training school here in Ohio she got her training through to get her license, I'd like to sit in on one of their classes. But I think she could probably use a real training course.

    Now, I do sympathize with the woman, who has repeatedly been the victim of criminal acts according to the article. I think that it is great that she was unharmed. I think that it was good on her to bandage up the injured burglar and help him, despite the face that she said if he looked older, she would have shot him, and had no compassion.

    And, I see no mention in the paper of any charges being filed against her, which I also like, especially given the fact that Toledo has traditionally not been very gun friendly. Hopefully it stays that way for her.

    Anyone else have any thoughts?
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,824
    I think you did an excellent job of summarizing what is wrong with this scenario.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,085
    She definitely needs to learn how to keep her mouth shut.
    baren likes this.
    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

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    I pretty much agree with the above, except for the escalating. I'm not sure about Ohio's castle doctrine, but she has a right to try to stop criminal activity in her house and that is not escalating. As long as she remains within the law relative to force, she is not escalating.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array Freedom Doc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    870
    I agree about the warning shot, should never be done unless you do it in such a way that you KNOW where it will go, and that's just hard to do.
    The main thing I think she did that wasn't very smart is to waltz on in (gun or no gun) and risk getting shot immediately. I mean even if you're the best shot in history, if there are bad guys in your house you need to call 911 and not just waltz on in. That they are unarmed? She didn't know that in advance.
    Anti-gunners seem to believe that if we just pass enough laws, we can have utopia. Unfortunately, utopia is NOT one of our choices.

  7. #6
    Moderator
    Array buckeye .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Guantes View Post
    I pretty much agree with the above, except for the escalating. I'm not sure about Ohio's castle doctrine, but she has a right to try to stop criminal activity in her house and that is not escalating. As long as she remains within the law relative to force, she is not escalating.
    Gloves, the below is taken straight from the Ohio AG's CHL handbook: Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine - 2011 Concealed Carry Laws Manual

    Self-Defense
    Depending on the specic facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that use of deadly force was justied to excuse his actions, which
    would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense of another is an
    afrmative defense that an accused may assert against a criminal charge for
    an assault or homicide offense.
    The term “afrmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor,
    must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must provethat it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the situation.
    Whether this afrmative defense applies to the situation or whether it willlikely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specic
    facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court hasexplained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish that heacted in defense of himself or another.
    Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
    First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the
    situation. The defendant cannot be the rst aggressor or initiator.

    20
    However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to otherunrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the
    focus is on the specic facts of the situation at hand.If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the rst punch, attacking, or
    drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in
    proving your afrmative defense.
    Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
    Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and thathis use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear inmind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death.
    The key word is “serious.”
    In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury canconsider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victimhad, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps
    from a scufe probably do not meet the legal denition of “serious.” In
    court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as hasbeing attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result frombeing struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bator a wooden club. The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger isimportant. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judgeor jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes andconsider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, andknowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future
    harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly
    force.
    Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
    A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid thedanger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing hisintention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.

    21
    If one person retreats and the other continues to ght, the person wholeft the confrontation may later be justied in using deadly force when he
    can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should alwaystry to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less thandeadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escapethe other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you areabout to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to usedeadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger.
    ‘Castle Doctrine’
    “Castle Doctrine” generally encompasses the idea that a person does nothave a duty to retreat from the residence he lawfully occupies before using force in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty to retreat if a person is lawfully in his vehicle or is lawfully an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that person.However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is not a licenseto use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is attacked, withoutfault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily harmor death. If the person does not have this belief, he should not use deadly force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life of others in danger, youshould withdraw from the confrontation if it is safe for you to do so. The law presumes you to have acted in self-defense or defense of another when using deadly force if the victim had unlawfully and without privilegeentered or was in the process of entering the residence or vehicle youoccupy. The presumption does not apply if the defendant was unlawfully inthat residence or vehicle. The presumption does not apply if the victim hada right to be in, or was a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle. The presumption of self-defense is a rebuttable presumption. The term“rebuttable presumption” means the prosecutor, and not the defendant,carries the burden of producing evidence contrary to the facts that thelaw presumes. However, a rebuttable presumption does not relieve the
    defendant of the burden of proof. If the prosecutor provides sufcient
    evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation or that the

    22
    use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent death or greatbodily harm, then the presumption of self-defense no longer exists.
    Statutory Reference(s): ORC 2901.05 sets forth the rebuttable presumption.ORC 2901.09(B) establishes that there is no duty to retreat before using force if a person is a lawful occupant of his vehicle or a lawful occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member
    Defense of Property
    There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death in orderto use deadly force. Protecting property alone does not allow for the use of deadly force. A property owner may use reasonable, but never deadly, force when he honestly believes that the force will protect his property fromharm.If a person’s property is being attacked or threatened, he may not usedeadly force unless he reasonably believes it was the only way to protecthimself or another from being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter wherethe threat to the property occurs
    So, you can not use deadly force to just protect property. There is a duty to retreat in the state, which is kind of odd in this case, because while it was her home, and we have a castle doctrine, she arrived, realized something was wrong, and went in. When she obviously could have easily escaped and observed. And she said she went in to keep them from stealing the pups. I'm not saying that the law on that is right or wrong, but the way I read it, it is on iffy ground. If she had been in her home when the home invasion occurred, then by all means, she is in the right to defend herself. I'm actually going to be interested to see if anything comes from that. But then again, I am not a lawyer.
    Fortes Fortuna Juvat

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

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Guantes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    5,272
    I believe that the bulk of that, other than the references to use of deadly force protecting property, refers to mutual confrontation type situations, as opposed to confronting criminal activity.
    "I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".

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

2011 chl handbook
,
burglars will be shot with no compassion
,

burglary forums

,
burglary stopped toledo
,
burglary toledo
,
ohio castle doctrine toledo
,
the fight occured in her house presumptionto have acted in self defense
Click on a term to search for related topics.