What Are The Gun Laws In Ohio To Keep You Safe?

[Ohio Gun Owner]

Anyone know the laws of Ohio a little bit better than I do? Basically I'm trying to figure out if Ohio has a stand your ground law, and if we are a castle doctrine state as well.


Thanks for the info in advance, it means a lot.

 

[~ZENAS~]

Ohio has a castle doctrine regarding your home and car. It is nuanced so I advise looking into the law. A good start is the booklet put out by the attorney general. Go to the attorney general's website to find it. We don't currently have stand your ground but I can see that possibly changing this term of the general assembly or next.


I'm a prosecuting attorney so message me if you have specific questions. I can't give legal advice but I will try to help get you the info you need.

 

[Dirtbike]

I keep a copy of this on my phone, it's a good reference but as @T\.L\.Jones stated is good to be familiar with the laws


http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Manual-(PDF)

 

[RangerTim]

As stated, we have castle doctrine, but in my opinion it is HUGELY misunderstood. So many people think it means you can immediately use lethal force within your home. That is not the case.


It takes the burden of proof off of you and places it on the prosecution in a self defense shooting (generally Self Defense is an affirmative defense)


Castle doctrine also does not eliminate the need to satisfy the AOJ requirements to justify the use of Deadly Force.


-Ability


-Opportunity


-Jeopardy/Intent


Castle does eliminate the duty to retreat within ones home and does extend to ones personal vehicle. Again, reading through the AG's booklet and the ORC will help considerably. Hope this post did a bit as well.

 

[~ZENAS~]

Well, to be fair, our castle doctrine does give a rebuttable presumption that a person trespassing or attempting to trespass in your home or car are there to cause you serious bodily harm. It's not only the duty to retreat prong of the deadly force self defense test that castle doctrine gives you the presumption of self defense.


Revised Code section 2901.05(B)(1) says:


"Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force."


Section (B)(2) that is referenced says the previous section does not apply if the person is lawfully there.

 

[RangerTim]

TL, While I am obviously not a lawyer, I read that to show the action of unlawful entry automatically meets the Intent/Jeoparody portion of AOJ. The intruder will still need to have the Ability and Opportunity to inflict said severe bodily harm or death to justify use of deadly force correct?


Or is it making the presumption that the act of unlawful entry in itself meets all requirements of AOJ? I need to brush up on my legalese! Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.

 

[~ZENAS~]

AOJ aren't really terms we use in Ohio law to evaluate self defense claims in Ohio. The 3 prong test is (1) the shooter can't be at fault for creating the situation, (2) the shooter must have a reasonable fear of immediate serious bodily harm, and (3) the shooter didn't violate a duty to retreat.


Basically, if someone unlawfully enters your house, you DO get the presumption they intend you immediate bodily harm. Again that is rebuttable by the state, but the burden does shift to them to prove you KNEW they weren't an immediate threat.


If I understand what you mean by opportunity and ability to carry out the harm, what I think that gets at is the requirement that the threat be immediate. If so, then yes, the unlawful entry gives the presumption that the threat is immediate.

 

[RangerTim]

I have been taught the 3 requirements to justify the use of deadly force are:


Ability: Assailant must have the physical ability to inflict severe bodily harm or death. This factors in disproportion of force.


Opportunity: he must be within proximity to inflict such harm. IE- can't shoot a guy with a knife if he is 100yds away


Jeopardy/Intent: He must have by word or action stated or shown his intent such that a reasonable person would believe themselves in danger.


For example, a guy walking towards me on the street with a 3ft metal pipe 100ft away. He has the ability, but not O or J.


He is now 5ft away. He has the ability and opportunity but has shown no intent to do harm.


He now is 4ft away saying "I'm going to kill you" and is winding up for a swing. He has the ability, opportunity, and has placed me in jeopardy by showing/stating his intent.


Is this a more outdated way of thinking? I have also been taught the 3 items you listed in your last post are also required for claiming self defense, so we're on the same page there. I appreciate the education. Thanks.

 

[~ZENAS~]

Yeah those 3 things aren't used as specific requirements for evaluating a self defense claim in Ohio. What they are are factors to consider when looking at prong #2 of the test, that the defendant reasonably was in fear of immediate serious bodily harm. We don't use those terms but use a "reasonable man" standard and ask "would a reasonable person in the defendant's position believe the use of deadly force was justified, i.e. that there was an immediate threat of serious bodily harm." We look at "the totality of the circumstances." And obviously those 3 things you mentioned factor in and are a good way to look at it. But as it applies to the castle doctrine, you get the presumption of self defense, so the burden would be on the state to rebut that. They might use AOJ to try to do that, but they need to show you had actual knowledge of those circumstances to overcome your presumption.


So if you teach those things, keep doing so. I actually like that presentation as factors people need to consider. But they are less applicable to castle doctrine cases than they are on the streets.

 

[RangerTim]

Much appreciated! Alot of you and I going back and forth lately! Lol


Anyone else care to chime in?!

 

[~ZENAS~]

[QUOTE="Chris Timmerman]Alot of you and I going back and forth lately! Lol

[/QUOTE]
I find discussions like this are the best way to learn, grow, and expand our knowledge base. I appreciate your insight.

 

[Shawn Agne]

Been finding this very interesting. So if I understand this in the simplest way if a guy breaks into the house in a violent manner say kicking in the door, and he is not someone I have invited in then I have the right to use deadly force if I'm in fear of my life and the lives of others correct?


Lets change the discussion if I'm on the street. If I'm being threatened to I have to retreat first or not?

 

[Dirtbike]

[QUOTE="Shawn Agne]Been finding this very interesting. So if I understand this in the simplest way if a guy breaks into the house in a violent manner say kicking in the door, and he is not someone I have invited in then I have the right to use deadly force if I'm in fear of my life and the lives of others correct?
Lets change the discussion if I'm on the street. If I'm being threatened to I have to retreat first or not?

[/QUOTE]
I was always under the impression that on the street we have a duty first to retreat, if that option is off of the table and we genuinely fear that serious bodily harm or death could become of the confrontation then lethal force becomes justifiable, in my house however I have no duty to retreat but that stops if the person gets out of the house ( can't chase down the road)

 

[~ZENAS~]

[QUOTE="Shawn Agne]
Lets change the discussion if I'm on the street. If I'm being threatened to I have to retreat first or not?

[/QUOTE]
Yes, if you aren't in your house or your car, if you can retreat from the threat safely, you MUST. Whether you can safely retreat will be judge by the "reasonable man" standard.

 

[Shawn Agne]

Ok thanks. So public building like say a mall and there is a person shooting but not at me, and I could run opposite way. Do I have to retreat?

 

[RangerTim]

My understanding is yes, unless you use deadly force in defense "of another" to eliminate the threat to someone that cannot retreat from the attacker....say a mother with a young child near the shooter or an elderly person. They very likely cannot retreat and therefore could respond with deadly force. It is always a difficult situation when you insert yourself in defense "of another" as they could state they were not in fear of their life or severe harm and your whole defense is gone. Agreed T.L.?

 

[Dirtbike]

Yea can be a slippery slope


Copied and pasted from the AG ORM:


Defense of Others A person may defend another only if the protected person would have had the right to use deadly force in self-defense himself. Under Ohio law, a person may defend family members, friends, or strangers. However, just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any more force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm threatened. A defendant who claims he used deadly force to protect another has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the person from that danger. Furthermore, the defendant also must show that the protected person was not at fault for creating the situation and did not have a duty to leave or avoid the situation. WARNING: The law specifically discourages citizens from taking matters into their own hands and acting as law enforcement. This is true even if you think you are performing a good deed by protecting someone or helping law enforcement. The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a person risks criminal charges if he interferes in a struggle and protects the person who was at fault, even if he mistakenly believed that person did not create the situation. In other words, if you misinterpret a situation and interfere, you may face criminal charges because your use of deadly force is not justified. If you do not know all the facts and interfere, you will not be justified to use force. It does not matter that you mistakenly believed another was in danger and not at fault.

 

[~ZENAS~]

Yeah, the issue with defense of others is that you put yourself in their shoes for their self defense claim. However if you're in a public place and a gunman comes in and points a gun at someone like a clerk or just starts shooting people, you can often be very confident who's at fault for creating the situation. Additionally a gun pointed is pretty much ALWAYS reasonable fear of immediate serious bodily harm. You better believe I'm not retreating in that situation so a gunman can kill a bunch of innocent people.