Do Ohioans need ‘Stand Your Ground?’

Note from Community Impact Editor Amelia Robinson: Ohioans have a “duty to retreat” from danger in public places before using deadly force in defense of themselves or others. Senate Bill 175, a stand your ground bill, would remove that duty. The Ohio House voted 51-31 late last week in favor of the measure. The Ohio Senate approved it the following day by a vote of 18-11. It is now heading to Gov. Mike DeWine, a Greene County Republican who promised to push through gun reforms after the mass shooting in Dayton’s Oregon District. Community Contributor David Shumway explains his objects to the bill below. You will also find comments from Facebook users for and against the measure. What do you think and why? Share your thoughts with us in a letter to the editor. Send an email with up to 200 words to edletter@Coxinc.com. Include a daytime phone number, your full name and the city in which you reside.

Credit: GABRIEL BOUYS

Credit: GABRIEL BOUYS

I have mixed feelings about the proposed “extension” of the “stand your ground” rule in Ohio. 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.

Credit: HANDOUT

Credit: HANDOUT

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 Governor 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. That the case 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 deescalated or avoided altogether.

Under current law, Ohioans have a “duty to retreat” from danger in public places before using deadly force in defense of themselves or others. Senate Bill 175 would remove that duty.

Posted by Dayton Daily News on Saturday, December 19, 2020

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”? But 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 have before he was killed. He too was in a public place where he 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.

Beavercreek resident David Shumway is a retired engineer. He penned the Beavercreek history book “Birth of a City.” Community contributors are people who frequently submit fact-based guest columns.

OUR FACEBOOK FOLLOWS REACT TO An ARTICLE ABOUT THE STAND YOUR GROUND BILL.

“This is a great bill. Let’s give back the power to the law abiding and stop second guessing against a criminals.” ― Albert Cowlan

“The bill title is misleading. The way the law is written today, an individual that uses deadly force to prevent a criminal from harming not just the individual, but others as well, has a duty to retreat and must be able prove he tried to retreat. This goes against the law of the land that a person is innocent until proven guilty.” Steven Harmeyer

“Pass the bill. Stop protecting criminals. You should not turn your back on a threat. Criminals should fear law abiding citizens being armed and legally capable of defending themselves.” ― Brian Smith

“Not sure why this is controversial? Every person should be able to ‘stand your ground.’ ― Andrew McGowan

“Violence begets violence. Too many men with lots of testosterone love to brandish their shiny guns. Fear, is our worst enemy. I question Ohio State lawmakers to be so concerned about this tired gun issue-SELFISH-during a raging pandemic, and the coup attempt by the current ignorant president.” ― Mary Prevoteau

Hopefully DeWine stands his ground and vetoes this bill until they agree to what he purposed after the Oregon District shooting. The last thing we need is stressed out, anxiety ridden fools to flinch and shoot someone who tapped their shoulder, which could end one’s life and get the murderer in jail, thus ending their life as well.” ― Katelyn Moe