"Castle Doctrine" Introduced in Ohio House

While we're adding stuff that every other state has, how about the House picking up adverse possession too?

The "Castle Doctrine" is a nick name applied to state laws which permit individuals to use deadly force within their homes to defend against intruders without criminal, and sometimes civil consequences. In the past year a myriad of legislatures have jumped on the Castle Doctrine bandwagon, bringing it's ratification up to 25 states.

Normally, individuals face a duty to retreat when presented with violence. Deadly violence is generally (and I haven't checked Ohio code here, so give me some wiggle room) only acceptable when it is the only option available, and the person in question faces a compelling threat to their safety.

Leading up the Ohio front, State Senator Steve Buehrer and State Representative Lynn Wachtmann (both GOPers) have introduced identical measures in Ohio as Senate Bill 184 and House Bill 264, respectively.

Let me make it real clear, I was initially excited to see these legislators introduce a Castle Doctrine statute - even if it was led by the GOP. Folks should be able to defend their homes, and in some cases their places of employment and vehicles, without fear of criminal or civil sanctions. Intrusion into these basic sanctuaries are clear cut, and a person can tell almost instantly if someone is in their sanctuary unauthorized with the intent to cause harm. This view obviously puts me at odds with some folks in my party (and surely in the GOP as well), but I don't care, it's what I believe.

Unfortunately, the Republican bill is overly broad, and gives literally a free "ooopsy daisy" pass to anyone acting irresponsibly who causes the death of another. Specifically, this passage from the proposed amendment to ORC 2901.05 should alarm everyone:

[1)] If the accused raises self-defense or defense of another as an affirmative defense and the accused or the person defended by the accused was suffering or was about to suffer an offense of violence that is a felony [2)] or was suffering or was about to suffer a forcible trespass upon the home of the accused or the home of the person defended by the accused, there is a rebuttable presumption that the accused acted properly in self-defense or in defense of the person defended by the accused.
Text in [brackets] inserted by BSB

This law effectively gives two proposed castle doctrine uses...

The second seems appropriate, if a person is suffering or about to suffer forcible trespass on their home they can use any self defense without fear of criminal or civil penalties (the statute gives them an affirmative defense to charges).

However, the first section of this proposed statute is irresponsible, dumb, and asking for trouble. If you're about to suffer a violence defined as a felony, you can do anything to them in self defense, anywhere. It's a free ticket to be vigilant. Do whatever you want, who cares. This is unbelievably stupid on behalf of the Ohio GOP (and this is coming from more or less a supporter of the Castle Doctrine).

If you're in a park and you believe, or it can be shown, that you're about to be subject to violence that is a felony you can pull out your glock and start shooting. You have no responsibility to remove yourself from the dangerous situation or mitigate the violence. Effectively, this gives me a free check to walk around the cities at 3am with hundred dollar bills pinned to my shirt, inviting robbers to try and come get them. As soon as I think they're about to commit a felony against me, I get to do some straight up yippee kayeah killin'. Target practice if you will.

Folks should be permitted to defend themselves. Hell, in some instances they should even be allowed to shoot first. But not all instances. That's just stupid.

Feel free to set me straight.