Menu Content/Inhalt
Victim Runs; Attackers Shoot Him Anyway PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff Garvas   
Tuesday, 28 June 2005

Those who have participated in the required training to obtain a Concealed Handgun License are familiar with the Attorney General's publication on Ohio's Concealed Carry Law. In that publication it states that "The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant must
prove three conditions to establish that he acted in defense of himself or another."

  • Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
  • Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
  • Condition 3: Duty to Retreat

    It would appear that one victim in the following story would have been justified to act in his own defense had he possessed the means to do so.

    Nbc4i.com in Columbus is reporting that something very scary happened in a typically pretty quiet place on Sunday.

    From the story:
      Residents say Westerville is typically a pretty quiet place.

      "It's very scary for the Westerville uptown area," resident Scott Vaughn said. "Something like this, I don't know of happening and I've lived here all my life."

      But now police say they may be able to connect four recent crimes.

      The men go up to the victim and ask for cigarettes to try to stop them in some way. Then, they ask for money, tell them to get on the ground and take whatever possessions they have, police said.

      On Sunday morning, police said the suspects got even more violent with a 21-year-old victim.

      Police said the man was walking through a parking lot along West Main Street on his way to a friend's house when he was approached by several men.

      They demanded that he get on the ground, surrounded him and showed him a gun. The man tried to run away but the men shot him in the arm and the foot and fled, police said.
    This story suggests that the man was not at fault, had a reasonable and honest belief that he was in danger and tried to run away. How was he rewarded? By being shot in the arm and foot despite following steps that gun ban extremists and certain law enforcement personnel often advocate. They would have us believe that running away or driving off when faced with danger will bring a pleasant outcome to the event. Unfortunately, as this story indicates, criminals do not follow the same guidelines.

    We cannot presume the outcome of this situation had the victim attempted to defend himself. What we do know is that he was extremely lucky to have escaped with only the injuries he sustained and that the perpetrators are out there looking for their next victim.

    Will the next innocent person that tries to run from these thugs be so lucky? What do you trust for your self-defense, Nike running shoes or Smith & Wesson?

    		•