Law Ohio Legislature Overrides Gov. Kasich’s Veto of Gun Owners Rights Bill

[Farmer Br0wn]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-stand-your-ground-protection-for-gun-owners/

As far as I know, Ohio was the only state in our Union where the burden of proof for self-defense was on the defendant, and not the prosecutor. This bill corrects that. It came just short of a full 'stand your ground' law.

It's also worth noting when a Governor's veto gets overridden. John Kasich is one of the names that often comes up when people bring up the notion of a Republican being a primary challenger to President Trump. Considering the fact that he's shown himself to be no friend to American gun owners, I don't see how this is even possible.

What say you WarRoom?

Is this a positive development for the people of Ohio? I believe it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your perspective.

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground should be nation wide imo.

 

[Trotsky]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. So, no, the burden of proof is traditionally not on the government.

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[8] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

The idea that you can admit to killing someone and have the presumption that it was legal is frankly appalling. That would mean that, so long as someone is in your house and the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt (amounting to about 95% certainty) that you did not fear for your life, the killing is lawful. That's insane.

 

[Dolomite]

Can the defendant take the stand?

Got a preponderance of evidence? (go for the affirmative defense - PoE is in a higher standard than "an element of reasonable doubt")

Why waste the legal system's time?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground should be nation wide imo.

Throw in national concealed carry reciprocity and I'm a happy camper

 

[VivaRevolution]

Self-defense is an affirmative defense. So, no, the burden of proof is traditionally not on the government.



The idea that you can admit to killing someone and have the presumption that it was legal is frankly appalling. That would mean that, so long as someone is in your house and the government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt (amounting to about 95% certainty) that you did not fear for your life, the killing is lawful. That's insane.

Why?

What is your problem with innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

I have mixed feelings.

As someone who has been doing martial arts almost as long as I've had my sherdog account, and a gun owner, I believe in the right to defend yourself with facing life in prison afterward.

However I also have reservations because legit murder could end up going unanswered due to this law.

 

[Trotsky]

Why?

What is your problem with innocent until proven guilty?

I don't have one. Disallowing a patently silly affirmative defense burden does not change the overall burden of criminal prosecution.

 

[Dolomite]

The idea that you can admit to killing someone and have the presumption that it was legal is frankly appalling

LoL. A justifiable murder (they do occur).

If there's hint of malice at the crime scene, wanna-be Detective Stickowitz will do what it takes to bring the killer down - always.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I don't have one. Disallowing a patently silly affirmative defense burden does not change the overall burden of criminal prosecution.

I just think the government should have to prove you didn't fear for your life.

That to me innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know much about affirmative defense.

 

[Trotsky]

I just think the government should have to prove you didn't fear for your life.

That to me innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know much about affirmative defense.

It basically creates a murder loophole. Anyone who isn't a total moron could orchestrate a murder in their own home and be able to proffer a 5% plausibility that it was in subjective self-defense. Proving intent (instead of proving the action and then having the defendant prove via clear and convincing evidence that their intent nullified the action) to that level of certainty is pretty fucking hard.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It basically creates a murder loophole. Anyone who isn't a total moron could orchestrate a murder in their own home and be able to proffer a 5% plausibility that it was in subjective self-defense. Proving intent (instead of proving the action and then having the defendant prove via clear and convincing evidence that their intent nullified the action) to that level of certainty is pretty fucking hard.

It maybe hard, but I was under the impression that our justice system valued not locking up innocent people, over convicting every criminal.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The idea that you can admit to killing someone and have the presumption that it was legal is frankly appalling.

Seems to be good enough for the police.

 

[Phisher]

It maybe hard, but I was under the impression that our justice system valued not locking up innocent people, over convicting every criminal.

LOL

You're not familiar with the appeals process, are you?

 

[Trotsky]

Seems to be good enough for the police.

Hadn't even thought of that. That's a good analogy, as a lot of states have that sort of burden of proof for police shootings. That was at the center (though not really talked about, since people aren't legal experts) of the Jason Stockley trial in St. Louis: the decision by the judge (to find not guilty) was correct, but the law giving that sort of presumption for intent was appalling.

 

[Dolomite]

Maybe the people that write the UCR at the FBI will need to open up a separate office for all the zillions of SYG & CD justifiables that will now occur.






MaudeFlandersScreaming.gif

 

[Greoric]

I don't have one. Disallowing a patently silly affirmative defense burden does not change the overall burden of criminal prosecution.

I'm not sure why not. If there's a homicide, why wouldn't there still be the state's obligation to prove wrong doing?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Hadn't even thought of that. That's a good analogy, as a lot of states have that sort of burden of proof for police shootings. That was at the center (though not really talked about, since people aren't legal experts) of the Jason Stockley trial in St. Louis: the decision by the judge (to find not guilty) was correct, but the law giving that sort of presumption for intent was appalling.

Not familiar with the Stockley case, that I recall. But beyond getting the same benefit of the doubt as the police, there's another way to frame the argument. Not all homicides are crimes. So if the action isn't necessarily a crime then it's the government's job to show that one took place.

 

[Rational Poster]

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...-stand-your-ground-protection-for-gun-owners/

As far as I know, Ohio was the only state in our Union where the burden of proof for self-defense was on the defendant, and not the prosecutor. This bill corrects that. It came just short of a full 'stand your ground' law.

It's also worth noting when a Governor's veto gets overridden. John Kasich is one of the names that often comes up when people bring up the notion of a Republican being a primary challenger to President Trump. Considering the fact that he's shown himself to be no friend to American gun owners, I don't see how this is even possible.

What say you WarRoom?

Is this a positive development for the people of Ohio? I believe it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your perspective.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second."

-Current President of the United States Donald J. Trump

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm not sure why not. If there's a homicide, why wouldn't there still be the state's obligation to prove wrong doing?

They only care that you killed him. That's their burden. Your burden by making the self defense argument is to prove it was justified. You're effectively admitting to the crime but saying that you were justified, hence why the burden of proof is on you. The jury can't reasonably acertain your state of mind, so you have to make that case to them.