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."

 

Comments

The Big Dog's back

Kurt, people like donut consider guys like your relative the same as you. They never, never speak out against the real welfare Queens, the Corporate Welfare Queens.

JudgeMeNot

Sharpton always looks like he should be cleaning algae off the inside of a fish tank.

sugar

SYG protects the victim, CCW protects the victim. The only reason the black caucus is against SYG is because their race is rarely on the victim side. Unless it is black on black crime. Truth is painful.

deertracker

Another dumb comment! SMDH!!!!!!!

2cents

Sugar is statistically correct!

deertracker

We know most crimes against backs are by blacks. The same can be "statistically correct" for all races. CCW is to prevent you from becoming a victim. It is not there so you can justify your actions. CCW teaches you your gun is not a weapon, correct?

2cents

(gun is not a weapon, correct?)

Yep, they drilled that in my head during the class and the main reason is that an weapon is considered aggressive, you are defending yourself so this is defensive.

I personally believe that anyone who chooses to own a firearm should be required the 12 hour class and range time the class requires along with the county background check. I am all 2nd amendment, but also do not want idiots, crack heads, whack jobs and the like any where near the "backside" of a firearm : )

grumpy

Wrong. Read the law regarding CCW. In Ohio you can't even pull the gun unless you are "in fear for great bodily harm or death, for yourself or others". Then you have to realize that if you use it for self defense you have to prove by the "preponderence of the evidence" that you were "in fear of bodily harm or death for yourself or others". That is the law in Ohio. If you carry in Ohio that is how you have to think about it. Trying to use weasel words to make some political point doesn't enter into the way a CCW carrier SHOULD think about it. Thinking any other way can get your rear in prison, as there are mandatory minimum sentences for having a gun in a crime. You might just end up with a celli named Ben Dover. That is why I would prefer for a JUDGE to rule on a SYG ruling than self defense in the hands of an emotional jury who can fudge the law when it isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". Judges rule on the LAW not emotion, or at least they should.

OMG.LOL.WT_

"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." Martin's family were NOT there but they say?????? AP showing their BIAS!

deertracker

DEAD speaks for itself! Did you say "unarmed?"

SamAdams

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying here. If I shoot a man who's intent on raping me, it's me who's the bad guy if he doesn't happen to have a gun on him at the time of the attack. Of course, since you sound like one of those men who think women who are raped are ASKING to be raped, the entire thing was probably my fault, anyway. Right??? And so I really should have just lay down and let it happen, I guess. Right again???

Contango

Re: "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."

So why the h*ll is this a racial thing?

Because of the media circus surrounding one single trial in FLA?

Collectively does this group amount to one brain?

2cents

The one concern over SYG is that gangs are using it to conduct street shootings among themselves and getting away with it. This was on the news a few weeks ago but I cannot quote the exact story.

Stop It

I promise that there is one white boy in FLA who will have his CCW as soon as he is able.

http://www.wfla.com/story/228194...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...

getit right be4...

No one should ever have to retreat from an aggressor armed or unarmed. You have the right to defend yourself. What give the state the right to tell you you must turn your back and flee.

Try goggling one punch deaths and see how many stories come up. It does not take an armed aggressor to end your life just just takes one punch. One punch thrown is grounds to protect yourself with deadly force.

The problem with Ohio law is that the burden of proof falls on the victim. They have to prove there was no method of retreat and that they feared for there life. The burden should fall on the state to prove otherwise. Innocent till proven guiltily not the other way around.

grumpy

"The problem with Ohio law is that the burden of proof falls on the victim. They have to prove there was no method of retreat and that they feared for there life. The burden should fall on the state to prove otherwise. Innocent till proven guiltily not the other way around."

You are the only one on here who actually knows about the law here in Ohio pertaining to self defense. Ohio is the only State where the defendant has to prove innocence in a self defense case. Every other state the prosecutor has to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. I got into it more in my post below a ways. I missed this when I was first reading through the replies to the article.

deertracker

No need for flattery grumpy! It does not become you. You are ALWAYS guilty until proven innocent regardless of the crime! Wake up!

grumpy

You are a fool if you believe that. But then we have seen how you reacted to the Martin/Zimmerman case. The law should be on a sliding scale as far as you are concerned.

deertracker

Commit a crime and we will see who the fool is!

grumpy

If I would commit a crime I would be guilty, fool. If I would be arrested for something I didn't do I would be not guilty. Did you understand the difference there, or do you need pictures, oh foolish one?

getit right be4...

Just more drool from the Deer. This guy never has facts to back up his wet chin. He is a constant slobber jaw of opinion. A opinion that is uneducated at best.

shucks

"Just more drool from the Deer. This guy never has facts to back up his wet chin. He is a constant slobber jaw of opinion. A opinion that is uneducated at best."
.........Who the hell are you ?

deertracker

getit right before you post! You have nothing to add to the conversation so turn off your computer and go cut the grass or something!

Truth or Dare

I don't need any SYG law to defend myself! It comes naturally.

Although this is off topic, I caught an interview the other night on WVIZ. That would be Public Broadcasting for those that are stuck on only a couple of "bias" channels. It was an interview with the creators of an interesting documentary called "A Place At The Table". Viewing it would help immensely for those who just don't get it, you know, what it's like to be a part of the 50 Million within this country that are "food insecure", 17 Million being children. Oh, and no I don't have nor need a SNAP card or any other govt. assistance to purchase our groceries. By the way, the best way to cut cost and boost profits along w/hefty corporate bonuses, is to reduce hours and benefits and raise prices. That's fact.

I do believe Washington, Congress and good ole Big Corporate America and their lobbyist has lost all sense of any humanity they may of had, especially for those within their own country!

JERRY from SANDUSKY

im for SYG the idiots are scuring now

Contango

Re: "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."

So they're arguing that they want their fellow blacks to run and high tail it when confronted?

grumpy

Just to put in a few facts into a discussion about what is law in Ohio... Ohio is the only State that makes the defendant who claims self defense prove his innocence. He has to prove he was in fear of bodily harm or death. Every other time a prosicutor has to prove guilt.

http://scholar.google.com/schola...

Other than Tax court, where you have to prove you are innocent, it is the only time I know of having to prove you are innocent.

Thus with a defendant needing to prove his innocence, I can see the need for SYG in Ohio, where a defendant has to prove his innocence, instead of the State having to prove guilt, in a self defense case. Can you imagine not having money, and having to prove innocence? What lawyer, other than a public defender, would take that case?

Why am I not surprised at the number of law experts, especially when concerning gun laws, that they didn't know about this, and the reason why SYG might just be needed, unless the self defense laws here are changed to the State needing to prove guilt. But then I am not really surprised that they make it a race case instead of a case about laws, and how they are written.

For those who need the case explained to them read starting at 2b in article below:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/24...

I would rather have a judge who finds cases in terms of law make a ruling in SYG rather than the emotions of a jury when they can fudge it, when Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT used.

kURTje

Glad that some noticed. ALL in elected "leadership" need pay/benefits cuts. We the people do the real work...not them.

JudgeMeNot

What the liberal media won't tell you , blacks benefit most from SYG laws. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most who live in high crime urban areas.

Democrats want poor minorities votes, but they just don’t want them to be able to defend themselves.

The Big Dog's back

Just like separate entrances into restaurants, different restroom facilities, different drinking fountains, yep, all benefited Blacks.

Pages