Posted on 06/08/2012 4:21:03 AM PDT by marktwain
Ohio’s castle doctrine law justifies defending yourself without retreating in your home or car. Twenty-nine-year-old Woodrow Edwards III was in his girlfriend’s car when a man he didn’t know lifted the door handle and tried to enter. Edwards then lifted the .40-caliber handgun he was legally carrying. As a result, he was convicted of aggravated menacing. Though only fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man, he’s appealing his conviction based on a novel (at least for Ohio) interpretation of the state’s castle doctrine law . . .
The case will be the first of its kind in Ohio because Edwards argues the castle doctrine should extend to his girlfriend’s car.“The judge fully welcomed the appeal,” Brad Fox, Edwards’ attorney, said. “She said there’s no case law on it now.”
The key point in this case is, does that right extend to a person in the car of someone other than a relative.
The original incident had an unusual twist to it. As it turns out, Eric Taylor, the handle jiggler, is the ex-boyfriend of Edwards’ girlfriend. Why Taylor took it upon himself to manipulate the door handle of his ex-girlfriend’s car isn’t clear. How the cops got involved is also not clear, but I suspect a man-card violation.
I would much rather not fire a weapon should I ever feel threatened with serious injury or death if making the person I think is a bad guy know I have the means to protect myself is enough. Who needs that on their conscience? Though I doubt all the ‘facts’ in this case as reported, from what I can glean it looks like this was a misunderstanding that could have ended tragically – but didn’t. Why punish someone for showing restraint?
Castle doctrine laws provide a very high wall of protection for citizens exercising the right to self defense in places they have a legal right to be. The prosecutor’s argument against application of castle doctrine protection in this case rests on Edwards’ relationship with the car’s owner. Because the car belongs to the girlfriend and is not his own or a family member’s, Ohio’s castle doctrine doesn’t apply – at least in this prosecutor’s mind. This is the thought process of someone looking for a way to deprive a citizen of their liberty.
That the prosecutor went to these lengths and the judge went along with it reminds me why we need castle doctrine laws in the first place.
As to the specific claim that the girlfriend’s car is a “castle” from which there is no duty to retreat, the spirit of the law is that anywhere one is legally permitted to be ought not carry with it a duty to retreat. No situation where one is in fear of serious bodily harm or death should require you to turn your back on your attacker.
There should be no question. If you’re about to be carjacked, you have the right to defend yourself.
“Though only fined $100 and ordered to stay away from the other man...”
I wonder if this is true. Or, if by virtue of the conviction, he has now ALSO lost his right to carry - a much more severe punishment.
Good point.
Castle D should be attached to an individual not their primary residence or car.
What if the x came to the door of the girlfrends house,no longer applicable?
Nope should be like AAA,goes with the individual.
Castle Law aside, if an unknown person attempted to enter a car I was in they would also end up viewing the business end of my gun.
I fail to see what he did wrong here?
Must one wait until they are under attack to draw their weapon?
Accoording to my liberal friends you apparently have time to discern whether the perceived threat is a threat or not... idiots.
Or a hotel room.
Seriously, how do your retreat from the inside of a car, other thank gun the gas if you’re the driver. And then you’ll hit the offender with your fender.
Oh! You mean George Zimmerman style?
When your head smashes against the concrete you then know that you are under attack.
No no no. You got it wrong. Even then, you can't be sure they are trying to "kill" you. They might just be trying to beat you up. /sarcasm (well, unless you are a liberal).
Car ownership is not a factor. (or shouldn’t be)
If you open the car door while I’m behind the wheel YOU have THREATENED MY PERSONAL SAFETY.
THAT is a sufficient legal basis for taking protective measures.
Could it be the old boyfriend bought it for the girl to use and still had the pink slip/title and insurance bill in his name? Been there done that with relatives.
My big head says: “that girlfriend aint worth goin to prison”
Not "castle doctrine"......"stand your ground" is the correct term for this situation. Both are needed.
One major difference between a person's home and a hotel room is that if one is at home, one may have a much better idea of who might be trying to enter for non-nefarious purposes. Hotels, by contrast, have staff who routinely enter people's rooms when they believe them to be unoccupied. To be sure, hotel staff will generally knock before entering a room, but one shouldn't shoot a hotel employee who forgets to knock.
A uniform and a pass key don't mean a person is an employee, either. Might be a former employee bent on trouble, or just a crafty criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.