Columbus NBC Channel 4 has a current story that should be a learning experience for every concealed handgun licensee:  Drawing your firearm to hold someone until the police arrive is, technically, a criminal act.  The question is if Ohio law recognizes the citizen's right to use "reasonable force" for property crimes as opposed to "deadly force" as the Ohio Attorney General's pamphlet on the use of deadly force implies.   If holding someone suspected of a crime at gun point isn't "reasonable force" what exactly is reasonable force?

The news media spins the focus of this story not on the individuals accused of being a menace to the neighborhood, but instead of the law abiding residents "taking the law into their own hands".

According to the story :

Two homeowners on the city's southeast side decided to take the law into their own hands, holding two men at gunpoint.

If there is no threat of life, the prosecutor said that pulling a gun could actually get you arrested for menacing or unlawful restraint.

While we're not disputing the fact that drawing your firearm is most likely going to result in an arrest we must ask the question:  Should it? 

According to the AG's pamphlet on the use of deadly force (page 22, 23) the following text implies that there is a difference between deadly force and "reasonable" force.  Emphasis added by OFCC:

There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death in order to use deadly force. Protecting property alone does not allow for the use of deadly force. Therefore, a property owner may use reasonable, but not deadly, force when he honestly believes that the force will protect his property from harm.

If a person’s property is being attacked or threatened, he may not use deadly force unless he reasonably believes it was the only way to protect himself or another from being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.

Deadly force can never be used to protect property only. Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter where the threat to the property occurs.

If a citizen or group of citizens "apprehend" a suspected burglar and they do not use deadly force, and there is no immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death, why shouldn't these individuals have the right to draw and use their firearms for the sole purpose of compelling the suspect to go to the ground and wait for the police to arrive?

If the suspect turns around and runs away there is no question: deadly force is not justified, and the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that a "warning shot" is deadly force.  You simply don't shoot at someone running away from you.  When a suspect flees the potential threat no longer exists and there is nothing that licensee can do but become an excellent witness.  

However, at any moment these suspected criminals could threaten serious bodily harm or death.  The mere presence of a firearm without a shot being fired is credited with ceasing everything from rape to aggravated assault.  The police and prosecutor quoted in the NBC story here seem more interested in protecting the criminal than empowering the citizen to take a bite out of crime.

If a home owner encounters a prowler in their home while armed what do they do?  You could draw your firearm and order them to leave or go to the ground, or do you wait until they attack you before you clear the holster?  Common sense seems to need to prevail here in favor of the law abiding victim, not the criminal.

Criminalizing the use of a firearm to compel a prowler to comply with demands until the police arrive seems to be the best possible outcome of using a firearm when it comes to reducing crime. In fact, isn't that what the police do when they encounter a potentially dangerous suspect? 

Of course, if you read the NBC Channel 4 story you're left wondering just what happened to the suspects in this case because the news media was more interested in making the gun owners look like vigilantes than home owners protecting their homes and community.