"Stand Your Ground" Legislation

I rarely paid attention to what my legislators were doing. My civic duty usually consisted of a quick internet search around election time. I've since changed my ways and have attempted to keep better tabs on those that represent me in our government. As such, I will be posting relevant topics that appear on my radar screen to hopefully initiate a dialogue with my voting peers. (I guess felons that have forfeited their suffrage can skip this one.)

Ohio Representative Steve Buehrer has recently introduced HB 541, commonly refered to in states with similar law as "Stand Your Ground" legislation. You can read the proposed bill in its entirety by clicking HERE.

Under current Ohio law, there are several conditions that must be met in order for a citizen to lawfully use force for self defense. (Pardon my paraphrasing, but I want to limit the actual legal jargon I quote later to HB 541 specifically.) These conditions are:

1) You must believe that you or a third party are in immediate danger of dying or suffering serious bodily harm.

2) You must not instigate or escalate the situation.

3) You must do everything in your power to attempt to retreat from the threat.

As outlined by the third condition above, Ohioans have a "Duty to Retreat" before they are legally allowed to use force for self defense... even in their own homes. HB 541 will amend only this aspect of self defense law (the first two conditions above will remain intact) by stating that a citizen has no duty to retreat and can defend themselves against someone that has forcefully and illegally broken into their home or occupied vehicle.

Sec. 2305.63. (A)(1) A person is justified in the use of defensive force against another that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to the other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person using the defensive force holds a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical bodily harm to the person's self or a third person.

(2) For the purposes of division (A)(1) of this section, a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious physical bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:

a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the other person's will from a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.

b) The person who uses the defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act of a type described in division (A)(2)(a) of this section was occurring or had occurred.

The legislation also proposes that a law-abiding citizen does not have a duty to retreat anyplace he/she is legally allowed to be when confronted by a criminal attacker.

(B) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat, has the right to stand the person's ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, and is justified in using the force, including deadly force, if the person reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to the person's self or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Personally, I think this is common sense legislation. One must still prove that they only defended themselves because the alternative was death or severe bodily harm. It is a bit ridiculous to legally force me to waste precious time trying to get my wife and I out of a 2nd story window before I am allowed to protect us from the ski-masked burglar that has broken into our house at 4AM and is standing in our bedroom doorway. Furthermore, if this right to self defense exists in my home, why shouldn't it extend to anywhere I'm legally allowed to be? The value of my life doesn't decrease because I happen to face death at the grocery store rather than my bedroom.

Any thoughts?