Stand Your Ground (SB175)
“I have always believed that it is vital that law-abiding citizens have the right to legally protect themselves when confronted with a life-threatening situation. While campaigning for governor, I expressed my support for removing the ambiguity in Ohio’s self-defense law, and Senate Bill 175 accomplishes this goal. That is why I have signed this bill today.”
Governor Mike Dewine (ARTICLE HERE) (OR HERE) (SB175 HERE)
The news has been filled with articles and reports about the surprising change of direction that Governor Dewine took this past week. Initially stating that he would veto any laws that failed to address his previous wishes of having “enhanced” pink-slip laws as well as enacting new laws regarding gun control. Governor Dewine made these requests shortly following the shootings that happened in Dayton in 2019 (CNN Article). The cries to “do something” were met with the proposals that would not have stopped the Dayton shooting if enacted. It would have, however, showed that the Governor “did something.”
HB175 will become law sometime in April 2021. The Governor signed the law even though doing nothing would have led it to become law on its own. The act of signing it into law was a bold gesture. By signing it, he took a stand. Doing so could lead to political backlash. So, why did he sign it?
I think he signed it because it made sense to put law abiding citizens first. Most gun laws that have been put in place have proposed that the victim of the crime should be held to a higher standard than the criminal committing the crime. The laws as they were originally written allowed criminals the upper hand. Somehow, the criminal would have a leg to stand on when a person defended themselves. It didn’t matter if the person that was defending themselves used a gun, a car, a bat or the criminals own weapon; if the criminal was injured, the law allowed the victim of the crime to have to defend themselves again – in court. These laws made it more likely for the criminal or his family to get a payday in civil court. The law as it had previously been written, made it the victims job to prove that they acted in self defense (guilty until proven innocent). Due process be damned. The law changed a few years ago with the return of a portion of due process. But the law still held the victim of crime to the standard that they would have to retreat before defending themselves. The Governor ran his campaign on removing this portion of the law to uphold a victims right to defend themselves. With this new law, due process fully returns and law abiding citizens will be held to the same legal standard. Innocent until proven guilty.
SB175 removes the requirement for a victim of a crime to attempt to remove themselves from the criminal action (duty to retreat). The people opposed to this believe that this will result in vigilantism. It has been stated that law abiding citizens will start shooting first and asking questions later…you know, like how police do it. (please note the sarcasm) If you think this is the case, let me remind you of the legal requirements that must be present in order for a law abiding citizen to legally defend themselves with lethal force:
1. The defending person, or person for whom you are defending must believe or be in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.
If the defending person chooses to shoot someone just because the other person said something that the defender didn’t like, the “defensive” act would be considered a criminal act, or an escalation that would be deemed excessive. It would not be considered self-defense.
The story goes that while a person is robbing your home and in the process of picking up your TV, unless that person attempts to use the TV as a tool against the victim, lethal force would be inappropriate. Ohio law does not allow a person to defend against property loss. The threat exists at the entry to the home. The risk of harm must be imminent, and it must be directed at a human. If the criminal is exiting the home, Castle Doctrine does not apply – the threat is leaving.
The Castle Doctrine addresses this issue of imminent danger being met with the intruder crossing the threshold (or in process of crossing threshold), as the point of imminent danger. If the criminal is not continuing toward the victim and instead picks up something and begins to exit- it becomes a defense of property. See how quickly legal defense can become unlawful?
This is one of the most difficult areas of the law to prove, or disprove. But your actions will be an indication of the genuine belief. Prior to defending yourself, did you respond in a way that would indicate your fear? Did you attempt to address the threat in a way that would be deemed appropriate to the danger that existed? Did the aggressor show a means to cause the great bodily harm or death? These are things that a jury will be asking themselves. A law abiding citizen should ask these questions of themselves.
2. The defending person (or person for which they are defending) must not be responsible for initiating or causing the action of the alleged attack.
If the defending party, or the party for which you are defending has started the altercation, lethal force is removed from your tool chest of options. For example, as a law-abiding citizen, you come across a violent altercation – who do you help? Are you sure that you are helping the actual victim? If you don’t know the whole story, you may end up defending the wrong person.
As a law abiding citizen who finds themselves being a victim of road rage, any reaction toward the offending party could be considered an escalation – and hence, remove your claim of self-defense. I encourage all citizens to avoid flipping other drivers off. Don’t even give an aggressive driver any reason to escalate on their end. And ultimately, don’t drive aggressively yourself.
If you are defending yourself, but you yourself escalated the situation. You no longer have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. Carrying concealed should not make you bolder, it should make you humble. You must attempt to de-escalate the situation. Leaving is still an option and most likely should be attempted – especially if you let your mouth or ego take over. I believe that if you are bold enough to be aggressive – you are not in fear for your life. I also believe that a jury would feel the same.
3. The defending person must be legally allowed to be in the location for which they are present and defending.
This is understandable, right? If you are not allowed to be where you are, you are not allowed to defend yourself from force being used against you. So don’t go to places that you are not allowed to be. Do not trespass on property. Do not enter areas with posted no trespassing signs. Do not go where you are not permitted to go. For the concealed carrying citizen, this includes businesses that do not permit concealed carry. If you end up defending yourself or others in a location that it is unlawful to carry, you take the risk of being charged due to failing on this portion of your responsibility.
With these issues being addressed, is it really the beginning of the wild wild west? Will law abiding citizens be likely to start shooting even when they are not in imminent danger or at risk of losing their life? I don’t think so.
I do believe that criminals will have a harder time committing crimes of violence against citizens. This bill makes criminals aware that their claims that put law abiding citizens in civil court will no longer be their families meal ticket – or the destruction of a law abiding citizens life. A criminal act must be where the fault lies, and with this new law, that it where it lands.
One final comment: This is not a license to kill black men.
I was shocked when I heard this claim. A violent act to the extent of egregious bodily harm or death is required for lethal force to be used in self-defense.
This comment insinuates that just because you are black – you are more likely to commit crimes of violence. Is this what you truly believe?
It also insinuates that all victims of crime – are bloodthirsty criminals waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone – specifically black people. Is this really what you think of law abiding citizens? Is it warranted?
Is this the message that you want to send? As I stated previously, a criminal act of violence must be occurring for any of this to play out. The laws against violence are still in place. Vigilantism is not what this law addresses. Instead, it addresses a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves while removing a previously unreasonable standard (the requirement to retreat). Why should any victim of a crime be required to attempt to escape a criminal act? This portion of the law blamed victims of crime by claiming that they were somehow responsible for the crime being committed against them because they didn’t leave. Talk about blaming the victim.
Is the act of standing up against a criminal and offering resistance somehow bad? I bet if more people stood up to crime, there might be less of it. I applaud Governor Dewine in his decision to sign this bill. Thank you for upholding your promise to hold criminals accountable, as well as protecting victims of violent crime and their ability to defend themselves.
If you want to learn more about your responsibility as a law abiding citizen as it relates to self-defense, you might want to sign up for one of my CCW classes. I take time to address these mindset questions as well as getting you up to speed on your gun handling, marksmanship and appropriate legal use of firearms. Thank you for taking the time to read my blog, and don’t hesitate to comment, share or ask any questions you might have.
As always, I hope to see you at the range.
Tim Barrage
Owner – Barrage of Shots Firearms Training
Great content! Keep up the good work!