Seems pretty clear cut to me

Ohio Revised Code 2305.40

Quoted: I am not reading it so clear. Can someone elaborate, and I dont me run the grey areas of it. I want to know what it says in normal words without heading into grey areas.

It's pretty clear to me, and I am not a lawyer.

In fact, it's one of the clearest, non-ambiguous pieces of firearms-related legislation I have read in quite some time.

Not only do we not have the duty to retreat, the law specifically authorizes deadly force to repel an intruder, AND gives immunity from criminal and civil liability to anyone defending their dwelling from intrusion.

I know this goes against what many of us have been led to believe by cops and CCW instructors.  But the law is the law.

Thats kinda what I thought but wasnt 100%

Does it mean we have that same right to our own property? Thats what it seems like to me. What I mean in example, I live on 2.5 acres and if I see a intruder I have the right to defend myself in any means right?

I guess it's all well and good until the phrase " prior to using reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure "  is used by the prosecuting attorney  to fry your ass.....  There is no such thing as "non-ambigous" in legal writings, if that were the case there wouldn't be so many attorneys.

 Go ahead and waste the bad guy for kicking down your door and threatening your goldfish. After your exhonerated for killing said scumbag with a mile long rapsheet, the the civil suit brought on by the greiving (greedy) crackhead family and their attorney will likley financially ruin you.

 Ohio does not have castle doctrine and that being said, your screwed....  So, about all you can do is practice yelling " oh no!! please stop Mr.Badguy!" while stumbling backwards in your jammies out through the door of your dark house at 4am.

 Mike

Good thread, need more feed back.

Quoted: I guess it's all well and good until the phrase " prior to using reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure "  is used by the prosecuting attorney  to fry your ass.....  There is no such thing as "non-ambigous" in legal writings, if that were the case there wouldn't be so many attorneys.  Go ahead and waste the bad guy for kicking down your door and threatening your goldfish. After your exhonerated for killing said scumbag with a mile long rapsheet, the the civil suit brought on by the greiving (greedy) crackhead family and their attorney will likley financially ruin you.  Ohio does not have castle doctrine and that being said, your screwed....  So, about all you can do is practice yelling " oh no!! please stop Mr.Badguy!" while stumbling backwards in your jammies out through the door of your dark house at 4am.  Mike

(B)(1) The owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property is not liable in damages to a trespasser on the property, to a member of the family of the trespasser, or to any other person in a tort action for injury, death, or loss to person or property of the trespasser that allegedly is caused by the owner, lessee, renter, or family member if, at the time the injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly is caused, all of the following apply:

(a) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member is inside a building or other structure on the property that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling;

(b) The trespasser has made, is making, or is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the building or other structure described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section;

(c) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member uses reasonably necessary force to repel the trespasser from the building or other structure described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section or to prevent the trespasser from making the unlawful entry into that building or other structure.

(2) For purposes of the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this section, reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from a building or other structure that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling or to prevent a trespasser from making an unlawful entry into a building or other structure of that nature may include the taking of or attempting to take the trespasser’s life, or causing or attempting to cause physical harm or serious physical harm to the person of the trespasser, if the owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property has a reasonable good faith belief that the owner, lessee, or renter or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family is in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm to person and that the only means to escape from the imminent danger is to use deadly force or other force that likely will cause physical harm or serious physical harm to the person of the trespasser, even if the owner, lessee, renter, or family member is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger of death or serious physical harm to person.

(3) In order to qualify for the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this section, an owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property is not required to retreat from a building or other structure that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling prior to using reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure or to prevent a trespasser from making an unlawful entry into the building or other structure.

It's pretty obvious that you did not even read the section of the ORC in question, or if you did, you failed to understand any of it.

Quoted: Thats kinda what I thought but wasnt 100% Does it mean we have that same right to our own property? Thats what it seems like to me. What I mean in example, I live on 2.5 acres and if I see a intruder I have the right to defend myself in any means right?

No.  Not at least according this section of the ORC.  This section specifically grants immunity when action is taken to prevent a trespasser from entering a dwelling (i.e. a structure occupied for the purpose of living).

I don't know if there is another section that gives you the same power to deal with people on your land but not in your dwelling.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess it's all well and good until the phrase " prior to using reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure "  is used by the prosecuting attorney  to fry your ass.....  There is no such thing as "non-ambigous" in legal writings, if that were the case there wouldn't be so many attorneys.  Go ahead and waste the bad guy for kicking down your door and threatening your goldfish. After your exhonerated for killing said scumbag with a mile long rapsheet, the the civil suit brought on by the greiving (greedy) crackhead family and their attorney will likley financially ruin you.  Ohio does not have castle doctrine and that being said, your screwed....  So, about all you can do is practice yelling " oh no!! please stop Mr.Badguy!" while stumbling backwards in your jammies out through the door of your dark house at 4am.  Mike (B)(1) The owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property is not liable in damages to a trespasser on the property, to a member of the family of the trespasser, or to any other person in a tort action for injury, death, or loss to person or property of the trespasser that allegedly is caused by the owner, lessee, renter, or family member if, at the time the injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly is caused, all of the following apply: (a) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member is inside a building or other structure on the property that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling; (b) The trespasser has made, is making, or is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the building or other structure described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section; (c) The owner, lessee, renter, or family member uses reasonably necessary force to repel the trespasser from the building or other structure described in division (B)(1)(a) of this section or to prevent the trespasser from making the unlawful entry into that building or other structure. (2) For purposes of the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this section, reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from a building or other structure that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling or to prevent a trespasser from making an unlawful entry into a building or other structure of that nature may include the taking of or attempting to take the trespasser’s life, or causing or attempting to cause physical harm or serious physical harm to the person of the trespasser, if the owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property has a reasonable good faith belief that the owner, lessee, or renter or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family is in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm to person and that the only means to escape from the imminent danger is to use deadly force or other force that likely will cause physical harm or serious physical harm to the person of the trespasser, even if the owner, lessee, renter, or family member is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger of death or serious physical harm to person. (3) In order to qualify for the immunity created by division (B)(1) of this section, an owner, lessee, or renter of real property or a member of the owner’s, lessee’s, or renter’s family who resides on the property is not required to retreat from a building or other structure that is maintained as a permanent or temporary dwelling prior to using reasonably necessary force to repel a trespasser from the building or other structure or to prevent a trespasser from making an unlawful entry into the building or other structure. It's pretty obvious that you did not even read the section of the ORC in question, or if you did, you failed to understand any of it.

 Oh pleeeze, if you want to shoot someone by all means have at it... The point I'm trying to make is that YOU have to meet ALL of the qualifying conditions of the statute to be effectivly immune from prosecution. That is not as easy as you think because the State doesn't take lightly to it's citizens killing people, FOR ANY REASON.

YOU have to be able to PROVE the conditions and that PROOF is subject to the interpretation of the authorities. Just ask an attorney.

 You may win a wrongful death civil suit but the legal bills could bury you financially. Also, there is some supporting statutes on Criminal Liability that gets pretty mucked up in the ORC hence, the need for an attorney.

  Mike

Quoted: Oh pleeeze, if you want to shoot someone by all means have at it...

Spare me the theatrics.

The point of this thread is that Ohio is not the nightmare some make it out to be when defending one's home.

You run from your home.  I'll stay and fight if need be.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh pleeeze, if you want to shoot someone by all means have at it... Spare me the theatrics. The point of this thread is that Ohio is not the nightmare some make it out to be when defending one's home. You run from your home.  I'll stay and fight if need be.

+1

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I would pull the trigger (law or no) if my wife or daughter were in danger.

Jay

Quoted: Not me! I'd pull it twice.  At least twice. -- Chuck

Roger that

Jay

This came up in discussion at the school I work at.  One of the teachers I work with is about to graduate from law school.  He said that there is no place in the ORC that talks about the need to retreat from one's home.  I showed him he was wrong... but he still refused to admit to it...  (I don't know)  

But, later in the day he did bring me some good info that I'd like to share.  He showed me a case that made it to the district court in Ohio.  The judge ruled that if someone forcibly enters your home, you have the right to use deadly force as long as you feel your life is in danger.  I am going to go out on a limb and say most home invasions occur when a person opens their door to talk to a stranger.  Keep your door shut and talk through the door people!!

I retorted that you could still be prosecuted by an overzealous prosecutor and convicted if tried by a liberal court.  He agreed.

After the horrific crime at VT I've come to the conclusion that laws that restrict the ability to defend myself and my family are immoral and not worthy of obedience.

Read into that what you will........

Quoted: After the horrific crime at VT I've come to the conclusion that laws that restrict the ability to defend myself and my family are immoral and not worthy of obedience. Read into that what you will........

+1000

While I now have my CHL, I was carrying long before Ohio had the law in the books.  In some ways it was actually easier back then.

Also, if anyone breaks into my home they will be shot to the ground.  I can live with financial ruin but I couldn't live with myself knowing a loved one was hurt or killed because I put a stupid law above their safety...