Buckeye State Blog - "Castle Doctrine" Introduced in Ohio House - Comments

Mike Pelsozy

faithblind — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:13:47 -0700

Don't see where that rambling by Pelsozy about LGBTs relates to the Castle Doctrine. But that is so like him. He appears to be obsessed with sexual orientation.

That kid was fricken

PoliticalOutcast — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:03:22 -0700

That kid was fricken crazy...he was not defending himself, he got those guns to get revenge on those that 'wronged' him. Don't hinder a law-abiding citizen who wants to protect himself because the state of Virginia didn't prohibit him from access. What happened to not using tragedies to promote political agendas?

Mike

Jerid — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:58:19 -0700

You didn't answer my question.

If it's alright to force a private entity to allow firearms on its property, is it alright to force private entities to abstain from sex, gender, sexuality, and race discrimination too?

I'd like to find the line with you folks on that one. Help me out.

Forget

Mike Pelsozy — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 08:18:05 -0700

Forget hypothetical…let’s talk reality…the PRESTIGOUS University you attend as well…Jerid…is the most LGBQT friendly in the country. They are very proud of that…it has been prominently displayed on the President’s and University’s home page. Also, this same president made it very clear he was “saddened” by the will of the people of Ohio, and many other states for that matter when they passed the defense of marriage act (and, similar measures). He even wrote a letter to us making sure we understood he did not care about state laws, etc. This letter included a pledge to continue domestic partner benefits and some other things. Thank the God of Abraham, Issaac, and Jacob that his lefty buddies (2nd highest paid professors in the State) threw him over the boat last year!!!! Maybe he should have paid closer attention to the budget at this prestigious university than the right express yourself sexually in any way you want and the university’s right to glorify it. Since I have not quit I must be accepting the right of my employer to impose on us whatever “anti-discriminatory” policy they want. By the way silly lefty…how come you did not hit at my lack to attention to grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc.? I have been much worse than that on here…maybe the guy who runs this place to fix the spell check. Guess I should not have cut typing class in my younger years. That being said I thought to myself that I could at least make the effort to cut and paste into word if jerid can’t make the spell check work. I am even more annoyed that the spell check is not up on the RAB comment form. Guess I will have to get unlazy.

What's that

Jerid — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:24:09 -0700

about letting private businesses discriminate and set policy for their domains the right loves to rail about?

Just to synch up with where you're at Mike, do you think it's alright to force private employers (such as the PRESTIGIOUS university you attend) to follow anti-discrimination laws related to gender, race, and sexuality? I ask because you seem to advocate to forcefully make your private employer accept a firearms policy you approve of, I'm curious if you'd be cool with me forcing them to accept an anti-discrimination policy (I know they already do, but we're talking in the hypothetical).

Not too long ago

saggitarius — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:09:11 -0700

a young man did just that defend himself on a university campus with a concealed, legally purchased gun. Only problem was his targets were students and the threat they posed to him was in his head. Is this the kid of tragedy we want to repeat? Guns have no place on a college campus. In fact, most campus POLICE don't carry them. As for this wonderfully cliche argument you make about protecting rights we have, I see no part of the 2nd amendment that says "thou shall carry guns on Cleveland state campus". Seriously, the text of that document says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds like we have the right to a national guard type organization to me, or maybe at the most to have a gun with moderate government intervention. It seems you would like you are favoring some of that activism from the bench that those of your ilk rail against continually. Finally, what makes you think your gun will make you anymore safe? Seems to me these poor boogie-men you speak of would most likely have a gun too, it aids them in being impoverished and violent, and I am guessing they can use it better than you. After all if they couldn't use it then they wouldn't be too good at being violent, and thus you wouldn't need the gun in the first place would you. (look I managed to spell everything correctly too...silly gun nuts)

I helped put 22 more (legal) guns on the street

Mike Pelsozy — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:09:49 -0700

That's right! I helped 22 Ohians get concealed carry permits. Forget complaining about the so-called castle doctrine..if you want somethng to really complain about try on HB 225 for size. When this passes I will be able to protect myself when I leave the University that I work at. this is the same University that someone went on a shooting rampage at, and people are robbed at gun point in plain sight of and in ear shot of a Clevleand Police Station. Under the current "concealed carry laws" I can not go strapped into work at this University. Instead, I have to leave my .40 cal in the car. This leaves me unprotected as I walk to my car laptop and ipod in toe late a night in the most impoverished and violent cities. If HB 225 passes I can carry that gun right into the university! I can carry on my late evening walks to the public library in the heart of the city! I am elated! I will longer have to worry about not being protected by the Cleveland Police. So, if you want to compalin about gun laws...complain about what HB 225 will let me do...protect myself. This leaves me with the question of why you guys fight harder for rights we don't have than rights we do have. You know, for something like unviersal, free health care instead of the right to defend myself. Anyhow...I am dissapointed...I thought I was going to get to talk about scooter tonight.

dob ǝɥʇ oʇ

clintonville_liberal — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:15:29 -0700

.ǝıʌoɯ ǝuʎɐʍ uɥoظ ɐ sı ǝɟı1

"Castle Doctrine" Introduced in Ohio House

Admin — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:06:19 -0700

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.