Law enforcement opposes Ohio bill on self-defense killings

"...The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of SELF-PRESERVATION; to the TRANSCENDENT law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which ALL such institutions MUST be SACRIFICED....."

"...THE RIGHTS of humanity MUST in ALL cases be duly and mutually respected...."

- James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The Defence of one’s self, justly called the Primary Law of Nature, is NOT, NOR can it be abrogated by ANY regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is NOT confined merely to the person; it EXTENDS to the liberty and the property of a man: it is NOT confined merely to his own person; it EXTENDS to the persons of ALL those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: NAY, it EXTENDS to the person of EVERY ONE; who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of EVERY ONE, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson,'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and U.S. Supreme Court Justice).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/OftheNatur...

“The law of nature is IMMUTABLE; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This IMMUTABILITY of nature's laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the AUTHOR of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency..."

“...This law, or right reason, as Cicero calls it, is thus beautifully described by that eloquent philosopher. "It is, indeed," says he, "a true law, conformable to nature, diffused among ALL men, UNCHANGEABLE, ETERNAL.... It requires NO interpreter or commentator. It is NOT one law at Rome, another at Athens; one law now, another hereafter: it is the SAME ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE law, given at ALL times and to ALL nations: for God, who is its author and promulgator, is always the sole master and sovereign of mankind."

- James Wilson,[The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, L.L.D.; Chap. III Of the Law of Nature].
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/TheWorksWils...

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed, and this without ANY qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government...."

"....This may be considered as the TRUE palladium of liberty....The Right of Self-Defense is the First Law of Nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under ANY color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

"...In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty..."

- St. George Tucker, U.S. District Court Judge, Blackstone's Commentaries,(1803).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/BOOKS/BlackCommTuc...

The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi...

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

“Afforded us by God & Nature”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/AffordedGo...

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature...

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/God&Natu...

Life, Liberty and Property
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LifeLibertyP...

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People
http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/George...

"the overruling law of self preservation"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/SelfPreser...

'for the common defence'(?)
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRi...

"The Right to Self Defense"
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Right...

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:

Origins
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins.ht...

Precedent
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Origins&am...

After The Fact
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Conte...

Amendment II and the Law
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/Contents.htm...

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.

NEOH Beemer Rider wrote:

This bill is right on the money. There should NEVER be a burden of proof to justify self-defense. The burden of proof should lie with the state in proving that it was NOT self defense - beyond a reasonable doubt. For 99% of the 'self defense' claims, that should not be too hard to either prove or disprove.

you need to think seriously about this position. shots ring out on a busy street and everyone turns to look and sees a man lying dead on the sidewalk and another man standing over him with a smoking gun. the man claims he was being attacked - no witnesses - and he has the presumption and the state has the burden to proves it was NOT self defense? good lord, how to commit a murder and walk should be the title of this bill. I seriously question anyone claiming to be in law enforcement and not seeing the scary ramifications of this. how would anyone ever be conviccted of murder??????

IF you Shoot someone dead, That is in your house..

Thats Good enough for me...

Peaceful Coexistence through greater firepower..

Well They better prepare the General public this way..

If gas, food, Everything keeps going up. And they jobs keep going to china.

Only the People that can Protect their homes with guns. Will have anything left in them that they earned.

If you put them in jail for protecting their home.
IT will be left as fair game for the punks to complete the job.

suz wrote:

prove the actions were justifiable! otherwise we are killing each other at random moments excusing our actions as being 'self-defense'! what is the gov. saying is ok to do to people - us?

You think being attacked, unprovoked, in your home is a random excuse to hurt the invader??? Are you fricken serious...what a dumb-ass.

Finally, Ol' Teddyboy supports sumthin' worthwhile. I have to applaud this measure.

amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
You think being attacked, unprovoked, in your home is a random excuse to hurt the invader??? Are you fricken serious...what a dumb-ass.

you miss the point entirely. under current law, if you are attacked in your home, door kicked in and you pump a bullet into his chest, the crime scene will scream self defense and you will have no problem with the law. but this law says your neighbor can get pissed and you , call you over to the property line and pump you and the law has to prove that it wasnt self defense. how do you prove a negative? this law is a disaster

concerned citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
you miss the point entirely. under current law, if you are attacked in your home, door kicked in and you pump a bullet into his chest, the crime scene will scream self defense and you will have no problem with the law. but this law says your neighbor can get pissed and you , call you over to the property line and pump you and the law has to prove that it wasnt self defense. how do you prove a negative? this law is a disaster

Dear concerned... I understand that you have strong feelings about this but you really are posting from a position of complete ignorance.

You're like the person from Mars who is trying to explain a football game to his friend back home when he's never actually seen one himself.

First, in almost all states it is ALREADY the law annd has been for almost forever that if the defendent claims self defense the prosecutor must prove that it is not.

Self defense is an "affirmative" defense. If you don't even know what that means you're going to have a difficult time making any kind of reasonable argument against it. But you're going to get laughed at a lot.

Secondly, you might want to study this cite here. The law doesn't change this one bit. Not one.

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

It will make you sound much more intelligent.

:-)

Two is the chest and one in the head. Say buh-bye to the thugs.

They should offer DMV Point redictions on drivers licenses for each one you get.

Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat...

Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894...

Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1...

Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895...

Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895...

Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18...

Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896...

Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke...

Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS...

Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18...

Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896....

Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn...

BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited...

Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav...

Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop...

"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."

- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli...

"Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."

- Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008.
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear concerned... I understand that you have strong feelings about this but you really are posting from a position of complete ignorance.
You're like the person from Mars who is trying to explain a football game to his friend back home when he's never actually seen one himself.
First, in almost all states it is ALREADY the law annd has been for almost forever that if the defendent claims self defense the prosecutor must prove that it is not.
Self defense is an "affirmative" defense. If you don't even know what that means you're going to have a difficult time making any kind of reasonable argument against it. But you're going to get laughed at a lot.
Secondly, you might want to study this cite here. The law doesn't change this one bit. Not one.
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/
It will make you sound much more intelligent.
:-)

sorry Jack but the ignorance lies in your court, not mine. an affirmative defense does not mean the Prosecutor must prove otherwise. The term affirmative defense means the person 'affirms' or admits the act but that culpability is reduced or eliminated by the circumstances.

note this quote from wikopedia: Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party making an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

you can claim self defense but you ..or the evident facts of the case... must prove it was self defense not the other way around. note also from wik: The burden of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proof by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence. so you do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was selof defense but you must indded prove it.

A bill that would make a self defense claim into a prima facia case and require the prosecution to prove it was not is a disaster.

BTW, Jack - try arguing the facts and not juvenile insults of people you know nothing about. It may rattle your friends but it doesnt me.

Chester wrote:

Two is the chest and one in the head. Say buh-bye to the thugs.
They should offer DMV Point redictions on drivers licenses for each one you get.

it was stupid of the attorney quoted in the article to make a statement to the effect that this would help drug dealers kill one another. that triggered most of the posters here into a mentally of good, let em kill each other. i happen to agree with that - let them kill each other ..but the danger of this law isnt with drug dealers it is the danger of some ordinary person getting enraged, killing someone and then saying it was self defense. To any real law enforcement person, that is a nightmare. getting away with murder would be cake.

some of you need to think a little

concerned citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
sorry Jack but the ignorance lies in your court, not mine. an affirmative defense does not mean the Prosecutor must prove otherwise.
.

if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7 Cir. 1978)

If you turn to wiki for your legal advice, good luck.

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7 Cir. 1978)
If you turn to wiki for your legal advice, good luck.

how about if i quote from the you gave, jackie boy:

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say,“He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask,“Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7 Cir. 1978)
If you turn to wiki for your legal advice, good luck.

Hat tip, Jack.

Monty wrote:

<quoted text>
Hat tip, Jack.

before you tip the hat too far, here are quotes from the first page of his site:

An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
sought.

An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge.

note what it says - the burden is on the defense to present evidence in support of the affirmative defense. you cant just claim it and watch the burden fall to the Prosecution - no matter how much you wish it to be true

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7 Cir. 1978)
If you turn to wiki for your legal advice, good luck.

you are glossing over the meaning of the phrase "if the defense generates an affirmative defense".... generating the affirmative defense requires proof. of course if you offer sufficient proof, the burden then falls to the other side but that is hardly what you have been arguing.

I will take your advice and stop citing wiki - your quotes prove my point all to well.

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:
"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."
- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...
Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat...
Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894...
Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1...
Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895...
Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895...
Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18...
Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896...
Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke...
Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS...
Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18...
Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896....
Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn...
BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited...
Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav...
Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop...
"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."
- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli...
"Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."
- Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008.
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/d...

I agree with everything in there. the point I am making is that it does require that you or the witnesses or other fact pattern prove that your self defense was legitimate. If this law passed, your brother in law could shoot your sister and say she was attacking me - end of story. no proof needed.

concerned citizen wrote:

<quoted text>
how about if i quote from the you gave, jackie boy:
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say,“He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask,“Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

And let us quote the FULL quote, eh. Like the part that you left out that came RIGHT BEFORE.

"The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so."

Let me repeat that: if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

What the new law does it take away the state's ability to second guess the defendant and attempt to make it seem as if he should have made the absolute most rational decision possible when there were only microseconds to deal with a emotional hypertensioned event.

But as I said... every thing else remains the same. There must be AOJP present. If I invite my neighbor over and shoot him just for the fun of it, I don't think that any explanation that I give the police is going to justify that. And if I "arrange" the scene to show that it was justified, I could have done that just as well under the older law, right.