Watching this local case closely... (Castle Doctrine)

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Redneck Rebel, May 30, 2012.

  1. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    Aside from the fact he exited his vehicle to shoot I don't really see a reason this made it to a trial. Ohio Revised Code 2901.09 states:

    2901.09 No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle.

    (A) As used in this section, “residence” and “vehicle” have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code.
    (B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person’s residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person’s vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.
    Effective Date: 2008 SB184 09-09-2008

    Lima man cites Castle Doctrine in shooting, parks, henry, court - Local News -

    Lima man in ‘Castle Doctrine’ case sought prosecutor’s help, parks, henry, lima - Local News -

  2. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. It presents an intriguing question - can you sally forth from your castle to drive off besiegers?
  3. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    Or at least when firing from within would further endanger those whom you are attempting to protect.
    tulianr likes this.
  4. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    State laws vary on that. It behooves he who sallies forth to know what they are, and take heed. I think it's obvious that circumstances will dictate prudent actions. Rr presents one possible case where you might get crossways with the local laws. You just have to know ahead of time.
    Silversnake and tulianr like this.
  5. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    Time for Judge Reed to retire as he clearly doesn't understand what No Duty to Retreat means.

  6. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

  7. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Well, looks like a case of Jury Nullification of the Judges Order.
    TnAndy, Sapper John, Brokor and 2 others like this.
  8. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    I believe that nullification would apply if there was a law clearly broken and the jury found not guilty anyway. Ignoring a judge's order after the facts appeared in evidence is a different matter. Judge's orders have the force of law in very limited circumstances; besides, you can't unring a bell. Even if the judge said to not consider that evidence he ruled out, if it was presented, it would be in the back of the juror's minds.

    That said, looks like a just verdict. Probably does nothing good for the Castle Doctrine, but shouldn't weaken it either.
  9. Redneck Rebel

    Redneck Rebel Monkey++

    I'm glad the fellow was cleared, but I think the fact he ever ended up in front of a jury in the first place was a huge miscarriage of justice.
    gunbunny and Brokor like this.
  10. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Judges Orders would have made a Fantastic Appeals Case, if the guy had been convicted. Likely the Appeals Court would have overturned the conviction, just due to the Judges Orders, as they clearly went against the State Statute. It could be the Judge did it, to give the defendant a better shot at an Appeal, should he have been convicted. Judges can be very crafty........... YMMV....
    oldawg likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary