Do Ohioans really need ‘Stand Your Ground’ law?
I have mixed feelings about the proposed “extension” of the “stand your ground” rule in Ohio. I definitely agree with the “castle doctrine” which allows deadly force in the defense of one’s home and family therein, but the change doesn’t seem to follow logically.
The change deletes the “duty to retreat” in a public situation and allows the same use of deadly force in any situation to defend oneself from “serious bodily harm or death” anywhere the person lawfully is. The new law as of this writing is awaiting Gov. Mike
DeWine’s signature or veto. He should veto it.
This is not an extension of the castle doctrine; this is something different altogether. One is that someone uninvited in a home can logically be presumed a threat.
But that presumption does not hold in neutral territory where both parties enjoy equal rights.
I understand the gun-rights advocates’ position, I just disagree with it, not only because it ignores the public’s right to safety via the “well-regulated” phrasing of the Second Amendment, but also from a safety standpoint.
Too many people are already dying in confrontations over misunderstandings or fueled by alcohol that could be de-escalated or avoided altogether.
A prominent spokesman for the bill testified, “If you honestly believe you are about to die, … it is absurd to expect you to attempt escape… (The current law) is an injustice to victims of crime …”
But this leaves it up to the individual to “honestly believe” she or he is about to die. It would be hard for a court to dispute what someone says they believe, and there would be no burden of proof on the part of the defendant.
Was a gun drawn and pointed? Was a gun displayed? A knife? Did the deceased verbally abuse? Lunge? Impede? Threaten? Look intimidating? Ask for directions?
“An injustice to victims of crime”? This law allows the use of lethal force whether or not a crime was committed, was about to be committed, or was even planned. And yes, the deceased has rights, too, or did before he or she was killed. The deceased, too, was in a public place where he or she had every right to be. But the deceased’s rights to legal processes guaranteed by that same Bill of Rights have suddenly become moot.
This proposed law goes too far and violates the Second Amendment’s “well regulated” phrasing. It’s also a boon to lawyers and a nightmare for law enforcement and the courts. Every case will be publicized, sensationalized, protested, and eventually resolved by judges and jurors who, without hard evidence, will apply their individual interpretations and Second Amendment views.