|
OFCC Testifies in Support of Castle Doctrine |
|
|
|
|
Written by Gary Witt
|
|
Thursday, 03 April 2008 |
OFCC member Gary Witt was one of two witnesses testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Senate Bill 184 (Castle Doctrine) on April 2, 2008. The Committee also heard from Students For Concealed Carry member Steve Feltoon in support of the bill and from two opponents of the bill. Testifying against the bill were representatives of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.
Witt reports that the committee seemed favorable to the bill, asking tough questions of the representatives of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorney Association and the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police.
Today’s hearing was the fourth for the bill. A substitute bill was scheduled to be presented at this hearing for consideration but was not ready according to committee chair Senator Timothy Grendell. It will be introduced at a future, yet to be determined, hearing date.
The Senate Judiciary Committee normally meets on Wednesdays although not every week. Committee meeting schedules are posted on Friday afternoons for the following week at this link.
The complete text of Witt’s testimony is below:
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Gary Witt and I am here today speaking on behalf of Ohioans For Concealed Carry, Incorporated. OFCC is a proponent of this long overdue legislation and has asked me to address the committee today. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this.
In Ohio, deadly force can only be used to prevent serious bodily harm or death. Senate Bill 184 does not change this. Senate Bill 184 does not relieve an individual of the need to meet the three criteria in establishing an affirmative defense of self defense or defense of another. Those conditions are 1) defendant is not at fault, 2) reasonable and honest belief of danger and 3) duty to retreat. Although there is no duty to retreat in one's own home, deadly force may be used by the occupant only if the individual reasonably and honestly believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death. In all cases if it is determined that a person's use of deadly force was not justified, criminal charges may be pursued. Contrary to Mr. Burnside's testimony before the Committee on January 30 this year, in the event a shooting is found not to be justified, there can be civil recourse against the shooter.
The Committee, on January 30 this year, heard testimony from Toby Hoover representing the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence that, and I quote, "Senate Bill 184 allows the use of lethal force to protect property - giving the protection of property a value above the preservation of life", end quote. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Senate Bill 184 specifically addresses the criteria for establishing an affirmative defense of self defense or defense of another. Defense of property is NOT listed.
Ms. Hoover, in her testimony on January 30, stated her organization's belief that Senate Bill 184 attempts to convince the public that the bill is a solution to a problem where one does not exist. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, if any Ohio citizen justifiably defends him or herself or their loved ones against death or serious bodily injury and suffers financial or material losses as a result of that justifiable act, there is a problem. It is a problem of being victimized twice, once by an assailant and once by the civil court. It is a problem that can be corrected by passage of Senate Bill 184.
I will be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you.
|
