Ohio: Two licensees hold neighborhood menaces at gun point

[Knimrod]

Two licensees hold neighborhood menaces at gun point
July 13, 2006
by Jeff Garvas
Ohioans for Concealed Carry (http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3640&Itemid=83)

Columbus NBC Channel 4 has a current story that should be a learning experience for every concealed handgun licensee: Drawing your firearm to hold someone until the police arrive is, technically, a criminal act. The question is if Ohio law recognizes the citizen's right to use "reasonable force" for property crimes as opposed to "deadly force" as the Ohio Attorney General's pamphlet on the use of deadly force implies. If holding someone suspected of a crime at gun point isn't "reasonable force" what exactly is reasonable force?

The news media spins the focus of this story not on the individuals accused of being a menace to the neighborhood, but instead of the law abiding residents "taking the law into their own hands".

According to the story (http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9513604/detail.html):

Two homeowners on the city's southeast side decided to take the law into their own hands, holding two men at gunpoint.

If there is no threat of life, the prosecutor said that pulling a gun could actually get you arrested for menacing or unlawful restraint.

While we're not disputing the fact that drawing your firearm is most likely going to result in an arrest we must ask the question: Should it?

According to the AG's pamphlet on the use of deadly force (page 22, 23) the following text implies that there is a difference between deadly force and "reasonable" force. Emphasis added by OFCC:

There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death in order to use deadly force. Protecting property alone does not allow for the use of deadly force. Therefore, a property owner may use reasonable, but not deadly, force when he honestly believes that the force will protect his property from harm.

If a person’s property is being attacked or threatened, he may not use deadly force unless he reasonably believes it was the only way to protect himself or another from being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.

Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter where the threat to the property occurs.

If a citizen or group of citizens "apprehend" a suspected burglar and they do not use deadly force, and there is no immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death, why shouldn't these individuals have the right to draw and use their firearms for the sole purpose of compelling the suspect to go to the ground and wait for the police to arrive?

If the suspect turns around and runs away there is no question: deadly force is not justified, and the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a "warning shot" is deadly force. You simply don't shoot at someone running away from you. When a suspect flees the potential threat no longer exists and there is nothing that licensee can do but become an excellent witness.

However, at any moment these suspected criminals could threaten serious bodily harm or death. The mere presence of a firearm without a shot being fired is credited with ceasing everything from rape to aggravated assault. The police and prosecutor quoted in the NBC story here seem more interested in protecting the criminal than empowering the citizen to take a bite out of crime.

If a home owner encounters a prowler in their home while armed what do they do? You could draw your firearm and order them to leave or go to the ground, or do you wait until they attack you before you clear the holster? Common sense seems to need to prevail here in favor of the law abiding victim, not the criminal.

Criminalizing the use of a firearm to compel a prowler to comply with demands until the police arrive seems to be the best possible outcome of using a firearm when it comes to reducing crime. In fact, isn't that what the police do when they encounter a potentially dangerous suspect?

Of course, if you read the NBC Channel 4 story you're left wondering just what happened to the suspects in this case because the news media was more interested in making the gun owners look like vigilantes than home owners protecting their homes and community.

Link to article (http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3640&Itemid=83)

[Done Deal]

The link wouldn't work for me. Does anybody have any more details on what the two menaces were doing when the citizens decided to hold them at gunpoint?

[Divegeek]

Looks like burglary.

[Done Deal]

Hey, I got the first link to work but...from what I gathered...not much had happened to form a conclusion. Dang, hate to see homeowners get in a jamb but.....maybe they acted a bit too soon.

[woody1960]

Well it seems the home owners should have split up.1 in the house & 1 outside, with radios.When the BG goes through the window into the home,the home owner in the house could...well you know.And if they got back out of the window, the home owner outside could throw him back inside.case closed.I guess they could have chased them around the yard with baseball bats till they got away to rob another house.It sounds to me that yes I guess you could say they did "technical" break the law,but that the cops are pissed some body did there job "for them".

[Quaamik]

It seems like the homeowners jumped the gun a little.

Yes, the situation and the suspects actions were suspicious. Yes, the suspects were likely up to no good. But at the time they were confronted, all they had done was watch the area and walk between two houses.

What if they had been undercover police or federal agents?
What if they had been plaincloths police or federal agents?
What if they had been private detectives hired to investigate someone in one of the houses?
What if they had been insurance investigators verifying condition of the property?
What if they were city tax assesors?

Even if they were obviously NONE of those, the proper place for the pistols from the way it was described (according to the way the laws are currently) was in thier holsters.

IMHO, this confusion stems from the fact we are still fighting our way back up the "slppery slope" of personal defense. A little over 100 years ago, someone attempting to assault you, trying to steal or destroy your possessions could be shot in many areas of the counrty and no charges would be filed. Even tresspassers could be shot (though it was frowned upon). Gradually, laws tightened until you could only shoot to defend your life or prevent forceable rape, and virtually prohibited having the means to do even that outside your own home. Liberal anti-gun forces tried to tighten the laws even further, to where stopping a rape wasn't an automatic justification for shooting someone.

Laws prohibiting lethal defense of property at least partially resulted in skyrocketing crime rates. The public has come to that realisation. The peak that wayed the public was when the prefered method to steal a car changed from hot wiring it in a parking lot to sticking a gun in the drivers face and "carjacking" it. The first "stand your ground" laws that I know of resulted directly from, and were directed at, carjackings (over 10 years ago).

Gradually we ahve been able to get easier access to concealed weapons permits, castle doctrine laws removing any requirement to flee in your home, laws that immunize a person from lawsuits in self defense cases, and stand your ground laws that remove the obligation to flee from an attack. But the law still restricts lethal self defense to preventing death, forceable rape, or serious bodily injury. And lawmakers, prosecutors and police see drawing a lethal weapon almost the same as firing it.

I expect that over the next 10 - 15 years, we will gradually be able to push laws similar to the castle doctrine laws that will allow brandishing a weapon, or even lethal force, in defense of some property. Already you can shoot to prevent a carjacking, which essentially auto theft with a threat while you are pesent. Sooner or later, a criminal stealing a car from within an attached garage will be considered the same as a criminal breaking into the living area of your home. Eventually, detached buildings on your own property be considered the same. Will we be able to streach the castle doctrine, or have a similar law written, to cover the situation if a stranger enters your yard when your children are present and refuses to leave? (by the way: that is ONLY tresspassing) We may even be able to change the law to allow you to draw your gun to stop someone from hurting your pet or stealing your car while it is on your property. It all depends on what we ware willling to band together and push for.

[Brian]

I wonder if there's enough to this case to use the Doctrine of Competing Harms. Ayoob says this isn't done enough where civilian use of force is concerned.