Ohio’s castle law gives citizens legal right to self-defense. If you feel threatened, if an intruder comes in your house or vandalizes your property you have the legal right to use the castle law in the proper situation. You have the right to use self-defense, when you feel like your life is on the line. Such as an intruder coming in your house with a weapon or someone trying to steal your car while you are sitting in a traffic jam. This is why everyone that has a clean record should have their concealed carry permit, so anyone can protect their self if any of these situations happen to them. Ohio passes the “ stand your ground” law in the early 1900’s. This law is just a section off of the castle law doctrine, which means you can “ stand your
…show more content…
This is not the case the castle law should be used because their life was not put on the line. The castle law should only being used when a person’s life is put on the line or being threatened in a life or death situation. If the person that uses very forceful actions when they are not needed, they should be prosecuted because the castle law is not written up that way. The castle law should only be used when a person is defending their personal property or their family. Someone shouldn’t be able to claim they used the castle law when a stranger starts to yell at them because of bad driving or cutting in line at a food court. The person that thinks they have the right to use the castle law in these situations should be prosecuted. They should have enough respect for other humans, to try to be civil and work things out with the person that is trying to make a scene. It creates a presumption of self-defense when force is used against an intruder in one’s home or vehicle. Under the old law, the burden was on the defendant to prove that they acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The intruder is actually is an intruder, this means the person whom forced is being used against does not have a lawful right or privilege to be in that home or vehicle. If someone comes in your house or your vehicle you …show more content…
You can use deadly force to protect yourself as long as the intruder has a weapon or is threatening you, to where you feel like that person is going to harm you or your family. A person should not be punished for protected their home or personal belongings, especially if you feel threatened. There is no point in getting shot for living in your own home when an intruder comes in threatening you with your life, you should be able to protect yourself with whatever it takes to keep you and your family safe. Why should you get in trouble for pulling the trigger first? It is written up in the castle doctrine that you basically have to let the person that is trying to harm you make the first move, when sometimes that person might have a gun or a deadly weapon and the first move is not always something that you can come back from. If the intruder has a gun or a knife they might make the first move by shooting or stabbing you which means you might be dead or badly wounded. So what is the point in taking the chance of getting yourself hurt just to take the first action? It should be wrote that if someone comes in your house without invitation or trying to harm someone in household that you being the home owner should be able to make the first move, because you are the owner of
This is not the case the castle law should be used because their life was not put on the line. The castle law should only being used when a person’s life is put on the line or being threatened in a life or death situation. If the person that uses very forceful actions when they are not needed, they should be prosecuted because the castle law is not written up that way. The castle law should only be used when a person is defending their personal property or their family. Someone shouldn’t be able to claim they used the castle law when a stranger starts to yell at them because of bad driving or cutting in line at a food court. The person that thinks they have the right to use the castle law in these situations should be prosecuted. They should have enough respect for other humans, to try to be civil and work things out with the person that is trying to make a scene. It creates a presumption of self-defense when force is used against an intruder in one’s home or vehicle. Under the old law, the burden was on the defendant to prove that they acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The intruder is actually is an intruder, this means the person whom forced is being used against does not have a lawful right or privilege to be in that home or vehicle. If someone comes in your house or your vehicle you …show more content…
You can use deadly force to protect yourself as long as the intruder has a weapon or is threatening you, to where you feel like that person is going to harm you or your family. A person should not be punished for protected their home or personal belongings, especially if you feel threatened. There is no point in getting shot for living in your own home when an intruder comes in threatening you with your life, you should be able to protect yourself with whatever it takes to keep you and your family safe. Why should you get in trouble for pulling the trigger first? It is written up in the castle doctrine that you basically have to let the person that is trying to harm you make the first move, when sometimes that person might have a gun or a deadly weapon and the first move is not always something that you can come back from. If the intruder has a gun or a knife they might make the first move by shooting or stabbing you which means you might be dead or badly wounded. So what is the point in taking the chance of getting yourself hurt just to take the first action? It should be wrote that if someone comes in your house without invitation or trying to harm someone in household that you being the home owner should be able to make the first move, because you are the owner of