Criminals have more rights...plain and simple
This is a discussion on Man indicted for killing intruder within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Man indicted for killing intruder | The Columbus Dispatch Strange assertions of facts....
Man indicted for killing intruder | The Columbus Dispatch
Strange assertions of facts.
"There's something in me I can't describe. It's as if I saw a strange darkness before me, into which I must go."
Criminals have more rights...plain and simple
It sounds like an ambitious DA who might be looking to make his political mark with a case like this one. Hopefully the DA gets his fanny kicked in court and finds himself stuck at a junior DA desk for the rest of his career.
I doubt there is anyway the DA can make that stick. Castle Doctrine at least in ky and Im pretty sure in OH but dont quote me on Oh is that you have no duty to retreat anywhere you are allowed to be legally. That would include your patio or on the street corner if attacked. I know Ky is that way and I think Oh is too.
Even if it is not that way in OH. The shooter has witnesses saying he was inside. Simply because the perp was on the patio doesnt prove he was not inside when shot and made his way out that far then dropped. The perp apparently wont be testifying.
Really shocking how people are expected to stand by while criminals invade their homes, terrorize their occupants, steal their belongings and not defend themselves.
I don't think the DA has a case but the Grand Jury thought he did. I hope the trial jury has more sense and finds this poor guy innocent, but I wouldn't count on it in today's world.
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others.
If the mutt was shot inside the home, there will be forensic evidence to prove that fact. If this is the case, this homeowner will walk. Because the mutt manages to stumble outside before he dies, should have no impact on whether the homeowner is indicted or not.
If he's outside, and he was shot outside, and he was in fact unarmed and presenting no threat to the homeowner, I think it's a coin flip. I'd like to think a decent attorney (not even a good attorney) could win this in court, with a jury. I'll not debate the finer points of the castle doctrine, as it varies from state to state, and I don't live in Columbus, Ohio.
One must always remember the definition of "jury" though. Jury as defined by me, for these purposes, is a group of people, to stupid to get out of jury duty. Do you really want them sitting in judgement of the facts, when your life is in the balance? Nah, me neither. :)
" But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.
Im sure the perps rap sheet was completely clean as well........lol
It's crazy! The victims have to live with the final results of the situation this lowlife put them in. Defend your home and family, go to jail???!!!! Pathetic
This is what has happend in Britian. Homeowners just have no rights to defend life and property. Often they are prosecuted for so-called taking the law into their own hands. Criminals are hailed as victims of the people they victimize.
This is sheer madness and if this Prosecuting Attorney is allowed to make this case an example of what will happen if you defend yourself, even inside of the sanctuary of your home, we are in for a rough ride into the future.
We may as well just open up our homes and let the thugs take whatever they want, including lives.
Hopefully a jury will see otherwise or this indictment goes extinct before it even gets to a jury.
"A Smith & Wesson always beats 4 aces!"
The Man Prayer. "Im a man, I can change, if I have to.....I guess!" ~ Red Green
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
Another less than astute prosecutor trying to pad his numbers on the back of a law abiding citizen(if the perp was shot inside.)These situations are all too common. Yes, the BGs have too many rights in our "system."
It sounds to me like the DA is looking for precedent more than anything. He needs a win or a loss to define the line where castle doctrine begins and ends. I'm cheering for the defendant in this one. The perp broke into his house, and regardless of whether or not he was armed, he was a clear and present threat.
Low information jurors as Rush would put it. A polite way of calling them stupid.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunder bolt...... Sun Tzu.
The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting........ Sun Tzu.
The DA will spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars while the homeowner as to spend tens of thousands of his own dollars to defend this charge. After he wins he won't get a refund from the DA.