Standing their ground

Black Ohio lawmakers oppose stand-your-ground bill
Associated Press
Aug 4, 2013

A group of black lawmakers in Ohio has started circulating petitions to help keep a stand-your-ground proposal from being passed in the state.

The bill would allow people to use force to defend themselves without having a duty to retreat first.

The legislation goes beyond Ohio's current castle doctrine law, which gives people the right to defend themselves with force in their homes, vehicles or vehicles of immediate family members.

Debate over such measures has increased since the recent acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin's family say Zimmerman, who identifies as Hispanic, racially profiled Martin as a potential criminal and wrongly followed him. Zimmerman says Martin attacked him.

At least 21 states have laws similar to the one in Florida, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The laws generally eliminate a person's duty to retreat in the face of a serious physical threat.

Civil rights leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, have said they would push for repeal of the laws. The Ohio Legislative Black Caucus wants to keep the idea from moving forward in the Republican-dominated General Assembly.

State Rep. Terry Johnson, a McDermott Republican, introduced the bill in June. It's had one House hearing. More than a dozen lawmakers back the proposal, which also would ease restrictions on carrying concealed weapons.

Johnson told an Ohio House committee in June that lawful gun owners shouldn't have to turn their backs on an assailant to try to flee if they are in a place where they have a right to be.

"If I was out with my family and we were attacked, I would want to be able to defend them and exercise my constitutional right to do so," Johnson said in written testimony. He noted that people would still need to prove in court that they were acting in self-defense.

Rep. Alicia Reece, president of the black caucus, said the group is trying to draw attention to the bill while state lawmakers are on summer break. They want constituents to tell the governor and legislative leaders that the measure isn't wanted.

"At a time like this, why would we be trying to bring something similar and the state of Ohio?" said Reece, a Cincinnati Democrat.

Johnson said he sees his bill as being a benefit to all, and he hopes he can find common ground with the black caucus on other parts of the bill.

Self-defense related bills failed in at least three states this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And several proposals that would have amended circumstances for allowable use of force also didn't advance in state legislatures last year.

Reece said at least 1,000 people signed a petition opposing the bill during a Cincinnati rally after the Zimmerman verdict. She said Ohio already has sufficient self-defense laws.

"We are not against anyone being able to defend themselves," she added. "What we have concerns with is something that could be put in the law that could potentially have someone out looking for trouble, pursing a law-abiding citizen that at the end of the day becomes a tragedy."




Looks like you are in the Darwin's Reject Division ,Mr. herbie_hancock


haha yeah fo sheezy, Id prefer Devils Reject though, Darwin was an idiot. Hey when you don't have anything else to say you should call people names and insist everything's phony that seems to work. Thanks for the respectful "Mr." though.


Gotta ask:

Why are 7 of the 10 richest people on Capital Hill Democrat?

Shouldn't "rich-Democrat" be an oxymoron since they are 'supposedly' altruistic? :)

Slinging poverty and income inequality must pay pretty well huh?

We are a nation of "Haves & Have Mores."

Compared to much of the world, U.S. "poor" are living in luxury.

The Big Dog's back

Boy are you jealous.


A friend owns a convenient store in Cleveland, 90% of his sales are on the card, then comes the cash to buy the booze. Many work, just under the table for cash.


I am saddened deeply by the trayvon Martin case and feel Mr. Zimmerman was out of line, but believe the stand your ground laws are completely necisary in today's world to be able to protect yourself, your family, and property. If I am out in public and assaulted I should not have to run away to protected by the law. I should be able to use force if needed when in fear for my or families life and be free from prosecution. If you haven't been to Cleveland or Detroit and cities alike it is turning into a free for all for criminals and con men, and it is my right as a u.s. citizen and as a human being to be able to protecet myself and not have to back down to a pack of gang bangin thug kids just because they have a pocket knife or a bb gun.

The Big Dog's back

If there wasn't such a wage disparity in this country, where people who work 40 hours a week could support their families, there wouldn't be such a high crime rate.


If you're worried about a 40 hr work week then be upset with obamacare, due to that heinous law most fulltime workers have been cut to 28 hrs a week. Great job obama.

The Big Dog's back

Which company did that sugar. Be specific.


Which company GI Joe? The mandate part of the law is not even in effect yet. The ACA is a good law and will help millions!


Re: "The mandate part of the law is not even in effect yet."

Since you don't own a business, one should not expect you to understand.

ACA had to be shoved down the throats of the American people. Only Obama-holes would refer to it as "a good law."

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

It was a well-intentioned policy that has dramatically affected the job market. My major qualm with it is that I have a government that forces me as a private citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company under penalty, but that is beside the point.

Part of the latest job numbers released include that part-time jobs are far outpacing full time. I have heard it referred to as the 29/49 Rule. You don't hire people more than 29 hours a week to circumvent the mandate just as you don't hire that 50th-plus employee to avoid other broad segments of the ACA. As has been mentioned here a lot, too, we are seeing an under-the-table cash economy to avoid many of the regulations coming down.

As for companies sticking to the 29 portion of "The Rule" I believe we can look at Cedar Point here locally. I have the opportunity to speak to many, many year-round-but-"part-time" employees who are unemployed for a portion of the year. This did exist before ACA, yes as it was literally the dead season, but starting last year that time was longer with no less dead time. If you add up the hours I do believe it equates to:


So no matter when you work within a year cycle (even if it is 40+ hours a week) you will be forced to take a break after you hit your 1500+ until the next cycle begins as the interpretation of the 29 Rule is in the aggregate of a year an employee can't work more than 30/week.

As for the cash-for-work, when there are many people who have bills taken care of by support programs (which I am not saying is a bad thing), it is easier and less complicated to just do local stuff for cash. All of this is human nature I can't condemn. If your basic survival needs are taken care of, you then focus on higher-level desires. As much as the stereotype of the Welfare Queen exists, many I believe aren't consciously living that lifestyle despite appearances.

Many laws from the ACA to our Income Tax are defunct as their presumptions about the knowledge and ability of the populace are flawed or outdated. They are divisive and only create misunderstanding and resentment between those who the laws claim can take care of themselves and those that can't. Everyone must be made into a producer instead of penalized and demonized for it. Those who are consumers (even through no maliciousness nor fault of their own) must be the bare minimum of society. For any number of broad or specific reasons, we are shifting - or some would argue have already shifted - into a majority of consumers with a dying segment of producers.

Stop It

Well thought out and well stated, HZ.

The Big Dog's back

Like companies haven't been doing that for years hero. They have worked people under 30 hours a week so they wouldn't be considered full time for 40+ years. Nothing new here, and for a company now trying to use the ACA as an excuse is pure nonsense. Ask people who worked retail in the 70's and 80's about their hours. You people are sure gullible.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Given the premise of your argument, the ACA then gives a legal, legitimate reason for the practice that before you could just carry a personal harrumph against and in fact does NOT offer any real incentive to hire people full-time. Correct? Maybe they should call 20 hours a week full time? Surely no company will employ people for less than 20 hours a week right? That will fix this problem, right? We should also mandate $40/hour minimum wage because companies will be forced to pay that. That will fix things, right?

Why is it nonsense that when humans make rules, other humans immediately try to find ways around, through, or just plainly ignore them? Calling legal deductions in the tax code "loopholes" is laughable for example. That is like being upset that milk is fleeing your cereal in the morning because you are using a sieve as a bowl. What audacity for milk to use the laws of physics despite your desires! All milk henceforth must be frozen or gelatinous in order for you to not have to use another implement than a sieve to eat your Cheerios!

"We made this a deduction in the code but are appalled that people are actually using it. So, we're going to brand people who use perfectly legal techniques to reduce their tax burden all kinds of names to shame them into...not doing anything different. Oh, we're also not going to change the tax code."

"We set a 30 hour limit as the definition of full time and are appalled that people are actually using that limit to still employ people part-time. So, we're going to brand people who use perfectly legal techniques to reduce their tax burden all kinds of names to shame them into...not doing anything different. Oh, we're not going to change the tax code either."

I agree 100% with you, there is nothing new here. In the gaming industry we have two terms we use: RAW and RAI. Those stand for Rules-As-Written and Rules-As-Intended. Even if you disagree with a game's rule or think it was poorly done so, you must play the game with rules as they were written despite what you believe the RAI was. You can invoke RAI but everyone must consent to it and see that there is no official clarification or a major disambiguity. In other words all the players change the rules together.

In this case, the rule is written pretty clearly. So to be upset that people are actually following the law is...what it is. When people think they know better and can socially engineer or dictate behavior - no matter how well intentioned - you will always find results like this. Always. Did I say always? Always. Always. Always. Always.

The abolitionist movement was a great example of this, to invoke a cause that I have no doubt you'd support or feel strongly about.

The Big Dog's back

Gibberish hz.



Since you are cognitively challenged I will sum up the results of the study. The liberal claim that income inequality is a major cause of violent crime is a myth.


Ironically because everyone wants the lowest price companies like Wally Word have provided that. Unfortunately the manufacturing jobs are about gone and you need a four degree to make a comfortable living, and that is not even a given. So many degreed kids of all colors and nationalities looking for work too. Our president is looking to the sky for jobs to fall, this is so foolish unless we close our boarders and make everything here, that is an impossibility.


Re: "people who work 40 hours a week could support their families,"

Go for it: Start a business paying top wages and benefits.


Haha what does a "wage rate" have to do with someones disregard for character and integrity? The people robbing, raping, killing and assaulting are not doing it because they can't support their families hahaha thanks for that one. You don't get to demand more than minimum wage until you have more than minimum skills. You do know what inflation is don't you? Its the concept that would make the minimum wage of $15 dollars an hour the new $7.25 and the $3.50 gallon of gas $8.00 and the people with minimum skills would still complain about not making enough.


These SYG laws are redundant. Self defense laws do allow you to protect your family and property with lethal force if necessary. You would be free from prosecution as long as the facts support your claim. However, you would have a duty to retreat if at all possible. You can't just shoot and kill someone because you are scared. Some on here really need to review the law and stop misinterpreting it.


I bet Michael Jordan's daddy was real scared when those two white punks robbed and killed him! There are people out there searching for opportunity to do these things along the road or while you are walking home from the store. Not long after that episode I got my CCW, if I have a flat that gun will be on my side, bad guys will see it and move on, therefor no conflict unless they choose!


The CCW permit only allows you to carry a gun, nothing else. A bad guy is usually armed also!

getit right be4...

Wrong again. The CCW only allows you to conceal guns. You do not need a permit to carry a gun.

Victimizations involving a firearm represented 8% of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

So 8% of the time in your book is usually? You constantly drool in the comment section with no facts to back up your slobber.


You need a permit to conceal it is true but how can one conceal it if they don't carry it? My point is it does not give you the right to shoot anyone! Unlike you, I don't necessarily just go with what is written. It has proven to be incorrect repeatedly. Doesn't matter anyway because your stats are not relevant to the point I was making about the what a CCW does and does not do. Pay attention!

getit right be4...

So back up your statement that most bad guy also have guns. Back it up with facts. You can not because it is not the case.

More drool from you.


getit right be4...You are making yourself look stupid.


Why should I be obligated to cower in a closet in my own home while the bad guys ransack whatever belongings I have? Why should I have to run and risk a gunshot or a knife in the back when I'm peacefully watching television and a bad guy breaks in?

I'm sorry. You break in, and that's more than enough to legitimately assume I'm about to be victimized and to fight back — including with lethal force — immediately.

Is my TV worth killing over? No. But how do I know that's all the bad guy wants? How do I know the bad guy won't hurt me or worse? Unless mind reading is yet another liberal demand, I'm going to play it safe and shoot. So NOW the question becomes: Is my TV worth DYING for?

The Big Dog's back

Be careful what you wish for, that gun could be turned on you.