Yesterday, Cleveland's Plain Dealer Politics Blog had this post from Reginald Fields. The post discusses SB184, Ohio's new "Castle Doctrine" law. The law creates a rebuttable presumption that person acts in self-defense when he uses force against someone who has entered his home or car unlawfully or without permission. The bill was signed into law in June, but went into effect yesterday.
Ohio's new law requires prosecutors and police officers to prove that a homeowner, or vehicle occupant, did not act in self-defense. According to the post, some Ohio prosecutors are against this new rule. These prosecutors view the law as a legal cover for individuals who did not actually act in self-defense -for example, a drug dealer who shot a customer when the deal "went bad." This Bill Summary, posted at the Buckeye Firearms Association, claims that isn't entirely correct. The summary states a prosecutor will still be able to rebut the presumption of innocence in cases where there is evidence of illegal activity, or evidence of domestic violence.
But wait, there's more...
Ohio's new "Castle Doctrine" law also immunizes crime victims from tort liability for the injuries suffered by an attacker, if the injury occurred during an act of self-defense. Ohio's former law allowed the attacker, or his family, to bring a civil action against the victim if the attacker was hurt or killed by the victim.
Finally, SB184 allows Ohioans with concealed to carry permits to transport their loaded firearms in an unlocked glove compartment or in the car's center console. The old law required concealed guns to be unloaded, and ammunition had to be kept in a separate, locked compartment, like the glove box, or the trunk. While the new law does correct some silly legal distinctions- i.e., it was legal to keep a gun in your purse in the front seat, but it was illegal to keep the gun in the center console - the new law permits loaded weapons in places that criminals can easily access. As the president of the Cleveland Police Patrolman's Association stated in the blog post, "as a one-officer car pulling over a car with four young guns wearing white T-shirts at 3 a.m. on the mean streets of Cleveland...[y]ou just made it easier for these guys to not only carry the gun, but to use it."
This raises an interesting point. The law should not penalize those who are responsibly and lawfully carrying their concealed weapons just because criminals shoot police during traffic stops, but, society also has a very strong interest in keeping its officers safe. And officers should feel safe as they conduct routine traffic stops. CJLF's brief in Arizona v. Johnson addresses this very point. The brief also addresses how frequently officers are killed during routine traffic stops. From 1996 to 2005, 102 of 575 felonious law enforcement fatalities occurred during traffic stops. Preliminary statistics released by the FBI in May 2008, indicated 11 of the 57 law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2007 were killed handling traffic pursuits and stops. These officers should not be penalized either - particularly because the officer will have no way of knowing whether the person he has stopped has a license to conceal until after the officer has approached the vehicle.
Leave a comment