Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Page Hometown » Ohio
Posted: 1/3/2006 10:20:51 PM EDT
What a jack ass. This guy didn't even have his permit 2 months before he did something stupid. I'm sure the anti-gun crowd will take this story and run with it...

Handgun brandished in parking lot dispute

BEAVERCREEK | A 28-year-old Dayton man with a permit to carry a concealed weapon placed a 9 mm handgun up to a Xenia man's neck following a New Year's Eve traffic dispute in the Mall at Fairfield Commons parking lot, Beavercreek police Sgt. James Wuebben said Tuesday.

Jason Todd Waple was arraigned Tuesday in Fairborn Municipal Court on single counts of felonious assault and aggravated assault.

He was released from jail Saturday after posting bond.

Waple, who didn't return a message seeking comment, obtained his concealed-weapon permit Nov. 17 from the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office.

Greene County First Assistant Prosecutor Suzanne M. Schmidt said this is the county's first case of a concealed-carry permit holder charged with a violent offense related to the firearm.

The concealed-carry law went into effect in April 2004. Schmidt said a county grand jury will review the case and Waple may face charges he violated the concealed-carry law.

Wuebben said Waple told investigators 54-year-old Ronald Plyes did not yield to him at a mall stop sign and nearly hit his vehicle.

Waple "followed him and thought he could take the law into his own hands," Wuebben said.

Waple's gun had 10 rounds in the magazine, but none in the chamber, he said.

Contact Amelia Robinson at 225-2384.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:09:01 AM EDT
What an idiot. Good thing he was to stupid to put a round in the chamber. He might have actually killed the guy.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:47:33 AM EDT

Waple told investigators 54-year-old Ronald Plyes did not yield to him at a mall stop sign and nearly hit his vehicle.


Hate to think what would have happened if Ronald had hit his car
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:40:42 AM EDT
Go to Jail.
Go directly to jail.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

I hope he gets a felony, loses his gun(s), and does time.
He's dangerous.

OFCC should go to the trial like MADD does and make sure the judge throws the book at the guy.
That would be good PR for OFCC, and help the cause in general.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:25:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
Go to Jail.
Go directly to jail.
Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

I hope he gets a felony, loses his gun(s), and does time.
He's dangerous.

OFCC should go to the trial like MADD does and make sure the judge throws the book at the guy.
That would be good PR for OFCC, and help the cause in general.



Nice Reply, Randy! He should be sent directly to jail....and without supper!
Cincylance

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:33:23 AM EDT
Its always some dumbass ruining it for everyone else.

I hope the gaurds tease him while in custody and his temper flares up again.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 12:22:22 PM EDT
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.
1.) None of us were there when it happened, so the facts are a little onesided right now
2.) First thing most civilized people are taught in legal matter is what? shut up and let your lawyer do the talking

I work with over 250 people less than 25% have shot a gun, even less than that own one. So they are ready to string him up already. They hear gun and automatically think criminal and idiot. To add fuel to the fire I'm a democrat who loves guns. So you can tell how well I'm liked when I attend fundraisers, the last being in 1999.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 2:11:41 PM EDT


Link Posted: 1/4/2006 3:31:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.
1.) None of us were there when it happened, so the facts are a little onesided right now
2.) First thing most civilized people are taught in legal matter is what? shut up and let your lawyer do the talking

I work with over 250 people less than 25% have shot a gun, even less than that own one. So they are ready to string him up already. They hear gun and automatically think criminal and idiot. To add fuel to the fire I'm a democrat who loves guns. So you can tell how well I'm liked when I attend fundraisers, the last being in 1999.




Thats a good point. Id like to hear the defenses side of the story.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 4:22:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.



I think we're all operating on the assumption that he did some things VERY wrong.

1. He confronted the victim, not the other way around.
2. He brought force to a situation where his life was not in immediate danger.

Now, is there a chance we're all wrong about this? Yeah, but as the facts are presented here we're pretty comfortable in labeling this guy a dumbass.

Secondly, the man we "celebrated" for carrying a gun into a park did so to invoke a legal fight in which a city was ignoring state law, and he did it for political purposes, not criminal ones. For that, he has my admiration. Now, if he drew his weapon and pointed it someone (see dumbass above), then that changes my attitude.

I see a huge difference in these two acts, don't you?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:07:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
Originally Posted By predator611:
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.




You think? Like maybe they forgot to mention that the 54-year-old took a couple shots at the guy from his car? I don't think so, and that's about the only way you could justify dipshit's actions. How could this guy have been in fear for his life? HE initiated the confrontation, HE escalated the confrontation. HE is a dipshit. I don't need a court to tell me that, and I don't need an idiot like him to jeopardize my rights. We have worked long and hard, very long, to get this law passed, and it is very disappointing to me that this has occurred. I'd like to see them make an example of this idiot, and good.

The park incident is completely different. That was an act of civil disobedience and any attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:42:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:

Originally Posted By swingset:
Originally Posted By predator611:
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.




You think? Like maybe they forgot to mention that the 54-year-old took a couple shots at the guy from his car? I don't think so, and that's about the only way you could justify dipshit's actions. How could this guy have been in fear for his life? HE initiated the confrontation, HE escalated the confrontation. HE is a dipshit. I don't need a court to tell me that, and I don't need an idiot like him to jeopardize my rights. We have worked long and hard, very long, to get this law passed, and it is very disappointing to me that this has occurred. I'd like to see them make an example of this idiot, and good.

The park incident is completely different. That was an act of civil disobedience and any attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.



...and furthermore...

How many times have you been carrying, and someone has cut you off, or pulled out in front of you? I almost always leave Fairfield Commons (where this took place) irate. Especially across the highway where the Best Buy and restaurants are. There's always some idiot flying across the parking spaces, instead of driving down the lanes like a sensible human being. So far, I haven't even been remotely tempted to actually do something this stupid. What this guy was thinking is simply incomprehensible. Did he think he was going to wait until the Beavercreek cops showed up to write this guy a citation? First off, it happened on private property which kills the matter right there. Secondly, they didn't witness it.

I'll tell you what, this stupid bastard is lucky a cop or aware minded citizen with a CCW didn't see him run and stick his gun to that guy's neck. If I saw something like that, I'd think it was a carjacking, and would act accordingly. What if the guy had a CCW of his own and decided to blast this moron after he chased him around the parking and then came running up to his car with a gun?
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:08:22 PM EDT
Well it happened in Greene Co. so he'll soon be doing jail time.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:04:46 AM EDT


The park incident is completely different. That was an act of civil disobedience and any attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.



If there is a legal problem you get a lawyer(s) and fight it . You don't go out in plain site of camera and get arrested for a law you don't agree with. Both acts involve guns
Once again I have to say None of us were there
I'm not saying what they allegedly did was right, but you cannot sit there and say the other guy said or did nothing the whole time.
There is one thing consistent about any and every law you break it sooner or later you get you do jail time
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:06:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:




You think? Like maybe they forgot to mention that the 54-year-old took a couple shots at the guy from his car? I don't think so, and that's about the only way you could justify dipshit's actions. How could this guy have been in fear for his life? HE initiated the confrontation, HE escalated the confrontation. HE is a dipshit. I don't need a court to tell me that, and I don't need an idiot like him to jeopardize my rights. We have worked long and hard, very long, to get this law passed, and it is very disappointing to me that this has occurred. I'd like to see them make an example of this idiot, and good.

The park incident is completely different. That was an act of civil disobedience and any attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.

So you were there then?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:22:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:

If there is a legal problem you get a lawyer(s) and fight it . You don't go out in plain site of camera and get arrested for a law you don't agree with.



Um, the point was to get arrested and challenge the Ohio law. Ohio's "affirmative defense" statutes with regard to concealed carry were vague, and the armed walks were an effort to push the legislature into making changes. I assume that is the guy in the park you're talking about.

On the idiot in Dayton, no I wasn't there, but I can't come up with any explanation for that guy's actions. In my above post I thought I made that clear. What exactly do you think could possibly explain it, other than my sarcastic example of the 54-year-old shooting first, which I'm pretty sure would have been reported.

What do you think happened? How can you possibly defend his actions?
He had absolutely no reason to have his gun out. What do you not understand about that?
At what point did he have a reasonable fear that his life was in danger?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 8:53:38 AM EDT
regardless if it 'looks' one sided, this guy needs to be in prison.

exactly what swingset said above, he brought lethal force into a "meathead" of an argument over traffic concerns in a parking lot, and he was the initial aggressor.

Conditions 1&2 of the Attorney General's statements on the use of deadly force were never even a consideration from this incident.

I hope he is convicted, and he loses his right to own guns.


next..
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:26:08 AM EDT
Last Summer, my wife was on the jury of a case where the selective reporting could easily make it look like the CHL-holder was in the wrong. But the jury got to hear both sides of the story and they took less than 2 hours to return an acquittal. It turned out that there was substantial evidence showing the CHL holder was justified in his use of his firearm.

A lot of important details get left out or misreported in news stories, and I would be slow to condemn a CHL-holders actions without all the facts. It is foolish to pretend all the facts are contained in news stories. This is why a jury trial takes days, but reading a newstory takes five minutes.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 9:36:40 AM EDT
It happened in the mall parking lot. If it was in the Fairfield Commons lot and not one of the other outside lots then the police will have a camera shot of the incident. The camera network at the mall covers the entire parking lot, with good clarity. So if this dumbass, pulled out his firearm, and threatend a person with it. Then he should go to jail. It should be a felony. And he should have any rights to own firearms revoked. This is Greene County, and we don't play around.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:14:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:


The park incident is completely different. That was an act of civil disobedience and any attempt to compare the two is ridiculous.



If there is a legal problem you get a lawyer(s) and fight it . You don't go out in plain site of camera and get arrested for a law you don't agree with. Both acts involve guns.



Get a lawyer and fight WHAT? An arrest that hasn't been made yet?

The man did what a PATRIOT should do, which is challenge an unjust law peacefully and publically (remember those pesky forefathers of ours???). He has brought this front and center, and before a judge and now that lawyer of his can argue the case right up to the Ohio Supreme if necessary. That's not irresponsible. He didn't shoot the gun, point it at someone, threaten anyone. He made a public stand and he has more balls than you or I.

I applaud that use of a gun, and it's a million miles from the INTENTION of the dipshit in the mall parking lot. No one can compare the two.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:38:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GhostRaptor:

This is Greene County, and we don't play around.





Please keep the jokes coming!
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:39:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:

If there is a legal problem you get a lawyer(s) and fight it .



Tell that to Rosa Parks... Oh wait... she just passed away, but you get the idea.

I admire her courage, and I admire the courage of someone who offers to be a guinea pig to prove a point.

You're point about jumping to conclusions is sound, but you must admit.... based on the afcts as we understand them, the guy was stupid. Our CCW laws are very explicit about our responsibilities to avoid and even flee before using force. And there are severe implications to brandishing a firearm, let alone assaulting someone with a firearm
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:12:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CZ-75Jeff:
You're point about jumping to conclusions is sound, but you must admit.... based on the afcts as we understand them, the guy was stupid.



There might be meaningful facts left out that would change an objective opinion.

I would not conclude that a news story was accurately reported unless I was able to compare the news story with all the evidence and testimony given at trial. A news story takes five minutes to read. Most jury trials take several days.

A case for which my wife served as a juror had a CHL holder holding an "honest citizen" at gun point for police. This was a fact that neither the prosecution nor the defense disputed.

The legal issue revolved around whether a reasonable man would have felt the need to use force in the situation, given the information he had at the time. The jury concluded that holding the man at gunpoint was a reasonable use of force and acquitted the CHL holder. The jury reasoned as follows:

1. Holding a suspected criminal at gunpoint is not the use of deadly force, it is a threat of deadly force. The applicable laws of the state have a lower thresold for the use of non-lethal force. Consequently, threatening deadly force to prevent certain crimes is acceptable in situations where actual application of deadly force would not be allowed.

2. The fact that the "honest citizen" who was held at gunpoint had previously pulled a knife on the defendant's son and his guests and admitted he was still in possession of the knife made the threat of force reasonable.

3. The fact that the defendant instructed his wife to call 911 before leaving his home to confront the man threatening his son and guests made the legality of his motive clear for the jury.

4. Expert testimony presented at trial was convinving that holding a criminal at gun point may be poor tactics, but the conventional wisdom not to draw unless shooting is legally justified is a tactical idea, not a legal requirement in the state of Ohio. The jury was unwilling to convict for tactical errors.


Originally Posted By CZ-75Jeff:
Our CCW laws are very explicit about our responsibilities to avoid and even flee before using force. And there are severe implications to brandishing a firearm, let alone assaulting someone with a firearm



Actually, there is no state law against "brandishing" a firearm in the state of Ohio. Under certain circumstances, drawing a gun might be interpreted as "menacing" or "aggrevated menacing" if done in a threatening manner, but the presence of a threatening intent needs to be established by the prosecution, and the defense will have an ample opportunity to convince the jury if drawing a gun was a "reasonable" use of force necessary and prudent to stop a crime. Once a case gets to trial, any defense attorney worth his salt will be able to draw a clear distinction between merely drawing a gun and actually firing it.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:20:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

I think we're all operating on the assumption that he did some things VERY wrong.

1. He confronted the victim, not the other way around.
2. He brought force to a situation where his life was not in immediate danger.




My wife was on a jury last Summer who acquitted a CHL holder where these two facts were both true.

1. The CHL holder confronted the "victim."
2. The CHL holder brought force to a situation where his life was not in immediate danger.

Some additional facts were that the "victim" had previously threatened the CHL holder's sons and house guests with a knife, and that he entered the situation on behalf of his house guests.

What additional facts might there be in the parking lot events? I don't know, but experience suggests that it is best to withhold judgment until and unless we are have all the information.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:29:39 PM EDT
sorry mike, you picked the wrong hill to charge.

In this 'great' state of ohio, it might not be written down in the law or even 'spoke' in the popular circles of CCW training but....

If you present your weapon as a CCW holder, within the state lines of ohio, it is to defend your life by stopping the threat. Nothing else..

in this case, an ego being hurt inside a parking lot doesn't qualify as a threat.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:46:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2006 3:49:36 PM EDT by JEC]

Originally Posted By chromeluv:


If you present your weapon as a CCW holder, within the state lines of ohio, it is to defend your life by stopping the threat. Nothing else..



That's also how I interpret the reason for carrying, and the rules of doing so. Seems simple enough.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:46:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JEC:

Originally Posted By chromeluv:


If you present your weapon as a CCW holder, within the state lines of ohio, it is to defend your life by stopping the threat. Nothing else..



That's also how I interpret the reason for carrying, and the rules of doing so. Seems simple enough.



+1,000,000

No way, no how, is my gun coming out unless deadly force is required to save my life or that of someone I love.

That point was driven with nails during my CCW classes by the LEO's who spoke - if you take that weapon out and don't use it to defend your life, you're going to jail. Right or wrong, that's the way it's going to happen. You may walk, but you're going to go through an expensive trial and possibly lose your right to own a gun, ever again.

That's the reality of Ohio law.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 5:02:26 PM EDT
This kind of reminds me of the Simpson episode when Homer gets that handgun and uses it for every little thing just so he can use it.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 4:24:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

No way, no how, is my gun coming out unless deadly force is required to save my life or that of someone I love.

That point was driven with nails during my CCW classes by the LEO's who spoke - if you take that weapon out and don't use it to defend your life, you're going to jail. Right or wrong, that's the way it's going to happen. You may walk, but you're going to go through an expensive trial and possibly lose your right to own a gun, ever again.

That's the reality of Ohio law.



Actually, it is not. There's a difference between what overzealous CHL instructors might tell their students (I am a CHL instructor myself) and what the judge will instruct the jury regarding the actual law.

Using deadly force against a person requires an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

There are justified reasons to draw (and even fire) that fail to meet this criteria:

1. Drawing a gun can simply be reasonable preparation to use deadly force if needed. As long as you don't point the gun or otherwise threaten, a prosecutor will have difficulty making a charge of menacing stick. There is no law against brandishing. There is a real tactical advantage to drawing without being noticed, but there is no violation of law merely in getting the gun in hand.

2. Drawing a gun can be the application of a reasonable application of force to prevent a crime that does not justify deadly force. "Reasonable" levels of force are allowed in Ohio to stop various personal and property crimes that would not justify deadly force.

3. Dogs can be shot for threatening either person or livestock. All that is required is the threat of bodily harm, the dog need not present a threat of death of great bodily harm.

Ohio's concealed carry law only impacts the legality of carrying handguns. There was no modification in the laws regarding the use of force. I carried for many years under the affirmative defense. During this time, I had several opportunities to have a gun in my hand while confronting situations. None was a violation of Ohio law. Here are descriptions of a few:

1. Arrived at my church to find the backdoor open during the middle of the week. I drew my gun and secured the facility.

2. I caught a suspected drug dealer driving across my property to make a delivery to an adjacent residence. I blocked the drug dealer's vehicle with my truck, approached the driver of the vehicle, and instructed him to wait for police. I showed him my gun and told him not to do anything stupid. When law enforcement arrived, the suspected drug dealer complained about me having a gun, but the law enforcement officers found no fault in how I handled the situation.

3. A large rotweilled had been coming onto our property, had knocked down our children and threatened our livestock. On one occasion, the dog attempted to enter our home. I drew my gun, met the dog right outside of our front door, and fired. I missed.

4. On one occasion when the Rotweiller came onto our property, my wife and I both drew our guns as we managed to close the gate and capture the rotweiller in a fenced area to be handed over to law enforcement.

5. I confronted a group of trespassing teenagers on the property where I farm. The teenagers became belligerent and threated to harm the dog I was with. They had the ability and opportunity to throw the dog off a cliff. Firing the gun I was carrying into a tree sent the teens fleeing and gave the dog ample opportunity to escape.

6. Animal rights activists had threatened me personnally and opened gates several times allowing our cattle to escape. On one occasion, I stepped outside our front door and noticed a trespasser several hundred feet away, immediately next to the gate of a pasture containing cattle. I immediately drew my pistol and fired two shots into the ground to prevent the trespasser from opening the gate and releasing cattle so close to a public road.

In all six of these cases, a gun was used legally in situations that would not justify the use of deadly force against a person.

Finally, any uninvited intruder in my home is going to find himself looking down the barrel of a gun. Has any Ohio jury convicted a home owner for menacing, aggrevated menacing, or assault for pointing a gun at a home invader and demanding they leave the premises? Yet there is no "castle doctrine" in Ohio, the laws that govern the use of force in the home are the same as on the street.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 5:10:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Michael_Courtney:

Originally Posted By swingset:

No way, no how, is my gun coming out unless deadly force is required to save my life or that of someone I love.

That point was driven with nails during my CCW classes by the LEO's who spoke - if you take that weapon out and don't use it to defend your life, you're going to jail. Right or wrong, that's the way it's going to happen. You may walk, but you're going to go through an expensive trial and possibly lose your right to own a gun, ever again.

That's the reality of Ohio law.



Actually, it is not. There's a difference between what overzealous CHL instructors might tell their students (I am a CHL instructor myself) and what the judge will instruct the jury regarding the actual law.

Using deadly force against a person requires an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

There are justified reasons to draw (and even fire) that fail to meet this criteria:

1. Drawing a gun can simply be reasonable preparation to use deadly force if needed. As long as you don't point the gun or otherwise threaten, a prosecutor will have difficulty making a charge of menacing stick. There is no law against brandishing. There is a real tactical advantage to drawing without being noticed, but there is no violation of law merely in getting the gun in hand.

2. Drawing a gun can be the application of a reasonable application of force to prevent a crime that does not justify deadly force. "Reasonable" levels of force are allowed in Ohio to stop various personal and property crimes that would not justify deadly force.

3. Dogs can be shot for threatening either person or livestock. All that is required is the threat of bodily harm, the dog need not present a threat of death of great bodily harm.

Ohio's concealed carry law only impacts the legality of carrying handguns. There was no modification in the laws regarding the use of force. I carried for many years under the affirmative defense. During this time, I had several opportunities to have a gun in my hand while confronting situations. None was a violation of Ohio law. Here are descriptions of a few:

1. Arrived at my church to find the backdoor open during the middle of the week. I drew my gun and secured the facility.

2. I caught a suspected drug dealer driving across my property to make a delivery to an adjacent residence. I blocked the drug dealer's vehicle with my truck, approached the driver of the vehicle, and instructed him to wait for police. I showed him my gun and told him not to do anything stupid. When law enforcement arrived, the suspected drug dealer complained about me having a gun, but the law enforcement officers found no fault in how I handled the situation.

3. A large rotweilled had been coming onto our property, had knocked down our children and threatened our livestock. On one occasion, the dog attempted to enter our home. I drew my gun, met the dog right outside of our front door, and fired. I missed.

4. On one occasion when the Rotweiller came onto our property, my wife and I both drew our guns as we managed to close the gate and capture the rotweiller in a fenced area to be handed over to law enforcement.

5. I confronted a group of trespassing teenagers on the property where I farm. The teenagers became belligerent and threated to harm the dog I was with. They had the ability and opportunity to throw the dog off a cliff. Firing the gun I was carrying into a tree sent the teens fleeing and gave the dog ample opportunity to escape.

6. Animal rights activists had threatened me personnally and opened gates several times allowing our cattle to escape. On one occasion, I stepped outside our front door and noticed a trespasser several hundred feet away, immediately next to the gate of a pasture containing cattle. I immediately drew my pistol and fired two shots into the ground to prevent the trespasser from opening the gate and releasing cattle so close to a public road.

In all six of these cases, a gun was used legally in situations that would not justify the use of deadly force against a person.

Finally, any uninvited intruder in my home is going to find himself looking down the barrel of a gun. Has any Ohio jury convicted a home owner for menacing, aggrevated menacing, or assault for pointing a gun at a home invader and demanding they leave the premises? Yet there is no "castle doctrine" in Ohio, the laws that govern the use of force in the home are the same as on the street.

Michael Courtney



I understand all that, but I'm talking about the case at hand - a man in a mall parking lot in an argument. If you aren't being threatened, or defending your life, and you draw your CCW and point it at someone in public, you're gonna end up in front of a judge. And, that legal fight may cost you your rights or a lot of money in legal defenses. I stick to my conservative and sane assessment of CCW in Ohio, if you're not defending yourself, you better keep that gun holstered or be prepared for the outcome of doing so.

Animals, home defense, etc. are an entirely different matter and have nothing to do with this situation.

That said, if I were you I'd seriously consider a career or geography change. If you are inclined to draw your weapon that much, which is more than professional law enforcement folks I have known, you are living a high-risk lifestyle. By your description, several times you put yourself in an unnecessary risky situation, playing law enforcement with your gun.

As an instructor, I think you'd know better than to put yourself into danger so often. I hope you don't charge much for your classes.
Link Posted: 1/7/2006 5:46:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2006 5:48:35 AM EDT by Michael_Courtney]

Originally Posted By swingset:

I understand all that, but I'm talking about the case at hand - a man in a mall parking lot in an argument.



My point is that there might be facts that we don't know.

Was there a history of threatening behavior between the men?

Did the CHL-holder have a restraining order against the other man so that his mere presence would have been a violation of law?

Did the man demonstrate criminal or threatening behavior toward the CHL-holder?

Had the man previously demonstrated threatening behavior toward the CHL-holder's family?

Was the man stalking the CHL holder's daughter?

We need all the facts. The jury will have all the facts. We do not, and we should not pretend to.


Originally Posted By swingset:
I stick to my conservative and sane assessment of CCW in Ohio, if you're not defending yourself, you better keep that gun holstered or be prepared for the outcome of doing so.



There is nothing unconservative or insane about wanting the gun already in your hand if lethal force becomes necessary.

I stopped recently for gas in a well-lit, safe neighborhood. While the tank was filling, a couple of gang bangers drove up to the pumps next to me. I discretely transitioned the gun from holster to coat pocket where I kept my hand on it throughout the encounter. Nothing was up really, gang bangers need gasoline too, so there was no incident. But there is a great deal of tactical wisdom in having the gun in hand before the shooting starts.



Originally Posted By swingset:
Animals, home defense, etc. are an entirely different matter and have nothing to do with this situation.



The laws governing the use of force are the same regardless of whether that force is used in the home or on the street, and regardless of whether one is carrying openly, concealed with a CHL, or concealed under the affirmative defense.

If drawing a gun is "reasonable" to prevent a crime, then it is legal. It doesn't matter whether the crime is threatened in your home, your car, or any other location. It is up to a jury to ultimately decide if the were "reasonable".


Originally Posted By swingset:
That said, if I were you I'd seriously consider a career or geography change. If you are inclined to draw your weapon that much, which is more than professional law enforcement folks I have known, you are living a high-risk lifestyle. By your description, several times you put yourself in an unnecessary risky situation, playing law enforcement with your gun.



The law enforcement folks I know and have seen often draw their guns on felony arrests, and when checking out possible burglaries.

Since I've had the opportunity for additional training, I have made significant lifestyle adjustments to reduce risk factors. I'm not saying that every time I drew my gun was the best and wisest approach to the situation. My assertion was that every time I used the gun, it was completely legal. There is a difference between a sub-optimal tactical approach to a situation, and breaking the law.


Originally Posted By swingset:
As an instructor, I think you'd know better than to put yourself into danger so often. I hope you don't charge much for your classes.



All of the above events occurred before I was an instructor.

However, the standard approach of "call the police and let them deal with the problem" is not universally applicable. We had informed the police about the drug dealers crossing our property , and years passed without an improvement in the situation. My actions lead to a solution of the problem and restored a degree of safety to the neighborhood. Likewise, we had informed the dog warden about the troublesome rotweiller. There was no improvement until we captured the rotweiller ourselves.

I am willing to put myself in danger when necessary to do so to reduce the exposure of my family and children to those same dangers. When law enforcement fails to solve a problem, it is not unacceptable for an armed citizen to act, particularly when the crimes are repeatedly occurring on his own property in a way that represents a risk to his family and children.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 12:41:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
And, that legal fight may cost you your rights or a lot of money in legal defenses.



This is the attitude of a subject, not a citizen.

Fear the jury who can convict you, not the LEO who arrests or the bureaucrat who prosecutes.

Our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a republic that includes the right to a jury trial.

They understood the importance in separation of powers lest the authorities become despotic.

If we allow the bureaucrats to dictate our actions (when we draw) in potentially life threatening situations from fear of prosecution in cases where a jury will likely acquit, we are living as subjects of executive branch authority and not as citizens of a republic.

Folks who carried for years under the affirmative defense understand this attitude, because any traffic stop could have resulted in an overzealous prosecutor dragging us before a jury to maintain our rights. Those who feared prosecution lived as subjects until obtaining permission to exercise a right that had already been granted under law.

When I was in graduate school, a dean called me into his office and threatened to kick me out of school for exercising my 1st amendment rights. I told him that the Constitution guaranteed my rights and I intended to keep speaking and writing as I willed. Several weeks later I received a polite letter in legalize expressing the institute's position that I could indeed keep speaking whatever I wanted as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Several years ago, the prosecutor in the City of Lakewood threatened my wife and I with prosecution for exercising our clear rights under the law. We retained an attorney and went about our business. The prosecutors threats amounted to little more than vain attempts to appease some local interests.

In the case for which my wife served on the jury, the armed citizen had exercised his rights to protect his family and guests in his home. He drew his gun and held another individual until police arrived even though neither he nor his family nor his guests were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The prosecutor was both appeasing liberal interests and attempting to set a precedent. The prosecutor lost, because Ohio law allows a gun to be drawn in some situations that might not justify deadly force, and the jury decided drawing the gun was reasonable given the facts of the case.

So you are correct in your implication that an overzealous prosecutor can cause you some expense and inconvenience if you draw your gun but aren't legally justified to shoot someone. But I've had bureaucrats threaten legal grief for lots of things. They usually back down when they realize you've got both the wherewithal and the inclination to resist their bullying and assert your full rights as a citizen. And even if they don't back down, beating them in court will slow them down a bit the next time they get an urge to bully an honest citizen.

Michael Courtney

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:15:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By predator611:
You know it's a damn shame when we are already convicting a man who hasn't had his day in court but we celebrated when a man carries a gun into a park.
1.) None of us were there when it happened, so the facts are a little onesided right now
2.) First thing most civilized people are taught in legal matter is what? shut up and let your lawyer do the talking

I work with over 250 people less than 25% have shot a gun, even less than that own one. So they are ready to string him up already. They hear gun and automatically think criminal and idiot. To add fuel to the fire I'm a democrat who loves guns. So you can tell how well I'm liked when I attend fundraisers, the last being in 1999.



I'm a gun loving democrat , also. I hope if this guy is found guilty, they DO "throw the book at him". This is indeed one of the first cases IN THE STATE where a permit holder is accused of violating the CCW laws. And if all it took was a parking lot altercation, maybe he shouldn't have a permit in the first place....let alone a gun.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:23:58 PM EDT
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:33:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Michael_Courtney:

Originally Posted By swingset:

No way, no how, is my gun coming out unless deadly force is required to save my life or that of someone I love.

That point was driven with nails during my CCW classes by the LEO's who spoke - if you take that weapon out and don't use it to defend your life, you're going to jail. Right or wrong, that's the way it's going to happen. You may walk, but you're going to go through an expensive trial and possibly lose your right to own a gun, ever again.

That's the reality of Ohio law.



Actually, it is not. There's a difference between what overzealous CHL instructors might tell their students (I am a CHL instructor myself) and what the judge will instruct the jury regarding the actual law.

Using deadly force against a person requires an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.

There are justified reasons to draw (and even fire) that fail to meet this criteria:

1. Drawing a gun can simply be reasonable preparation to use deadly force if needed. As long as you don't point the gun or otherwise threaten, a prosecutor will have difficulty making a charge of menacing stick. There is no law against brandishing. There is a real tactical advantage to drawing without being noticed, but there is no violation of law merely in getting the gun in hand.

2. Drawing a gun can be the application of a reasonable application of force to prevent a crime that does not justify deadly force. "Reasonable" levels of force are allowed in Ohio to stop various personal and property crimes that would not justify deadly force.

3. Dogs can be shot for threatening either person or livestock. All that is required is the threat of bodily harm, the dog need not present a threat of death of great bodily harm.

Ohio's concealed carry law only impacts the legality of carrying handguns. There was no modification in the laws regarding the use of force. I carried for many years under the affirmative defense. During this time, I had several opportunities to have a gun in my hand while confronting situations. None was a violation of Ohio law. Here are descriptions of a few:

1. Arrived at my church to find the backdoor open during the middle of the week. I drew my gun and secured the facility.

2. I caught a suspected drug dealer driving across my property to make a delivery to an adjacent residence. I blocked the drug dealer's vehicle with my truck, approached the driver of the vehicle, and instructed him to wait for police. I showed him my gun and told him not to do anything stupid. When law enforcement arrived, the suspected drug dealer complained about me having a gun, but the law enforcement officers found no fault in how I handled the situation.

3. A large rotweilled had been coming onto our property, had knocked down our children and threatened our livestock. On one occasion, the dog attempted to enter our home. I drew my gun, met the dog right outside of our front door, and fired. I missed.

4. On one occasion when the Rotweiller came onto our property, my wife and I both drew our guns as we managed to close the gate and capture the rotweiller in a fenced area to be handed over to law enforcement.

5. I confronted a group of trespassing teenagers on the property where I farm. The teenagers became belligerent and threated to harm the dog I was with. They had the ability and opportunity to throw the dog off a cliff. Firing the gun I was carrying into a tree sent the teens fleeing and gave the dog ample opportunity to escape.

6. Animal rights activists had threatened me personnally and opened gates several times allowing our cattle to escape. On one occasion, I stepped outside our front door and noticed a trespasser several hundred feet away, immediately next to the gate of a pasture containing cattle. I immediately drew my pistol and fired two shots into the ground to prevent the trespasser from opening the gate and releasing cattle so close to a public road.

In all six of these cases, a gun was used legally in situations that would not justify the use of deadly force against a person.

Finally, any uninvited intruder in my home is going to find himself looking down the barrel of a gun. Has any Ohio jury convicted a home owner for menacing, aggrevated menacing, or assault for pointing a gun at a home invader and demanding they leave the premises? Yet there is no "castle doctrine" in Ohio, the laws that govern the use of force in the home are the same as on the street.

Michael Courtney



One more example......and this was crazy for even me....but I checked with the Sherriff, and Cleveland Police......I am an Electrician, who does a lot of housing rehab work. Most rehab houses are in unsavory neighboorhoods....the County Sherriff told me that I could carry my weapon on PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT, AS LONG AS THE OWNER IS OK WITH IT. I have yet to come accross a contractor who will not let me carry.....Now as soon as I step off the property the weapon must be secured and locked accordingly.......I was working in one notoriously drug infested neighboorhood, and the little gangbangers even asked me "Is that a REAL gun?"..........as if I would carry a toy.....
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:39:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.



Not all Democrats are anti-gunners......but it seems that MOST anti-gunners are democrats......there are plenty of anti-gunners in the Republican party too... Arnold Schwarzeneggar ring any bells???.....I have yet to hear of any of California's insane gun laws being repealed....
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:43:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.



Not all Democrats are anti-gunners......but it seems that MOST anti-gunners are democrats......there are plenty of anti-gunners in the Republican party too... Arnold Schwarzeneggar ring any bells???.....I have yet to hear of any of California's insane gun laws being repealed....




Schwarzeneggar doesnt count. He was in Commando and Predator to name a few
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:49:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnnyMcEldoo:

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.



Not all Democrats are anti-gunners......but it seems that MOST anti-gunners are democrats......there are plenty of anti-gunners in the Republican party too... Arnold Schwarzeneggar ring any bells???.....I have yet to hear of any of California's insane gun laws being repealed....




Schwarzeneggar doesnt count. He was in Commando and Predator to name a few hr


lol.........I love the sense of humor in these forums......
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:07:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Michael_Courtney:

Originally Posted By swingset:
And, that legal fight may cost you your rights or a lot of money in legal defenses.



This is the attitude of a subject, not a citizen.

Fear the jury who can convict you, not the LEO who arrests or the bureaucrat who prosecutes.

Our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a republic that includes the right to a jury trial.

They understood the importance in separation of powers lest the authorities become despotic.

If we allow the bureaucrats to dictate our actions (when we draw) in potentially life threatening situations from fear of prosecution in cases where a jury will likely acquit, we are living as subjects of executive branch authority and not as citizens of a republic.

Folks who carried for years under the affirmative defense understand this attitude, because any traffic stop could have resulted in an overzealous prosecutor dragging us before a jury to maintain our rights. Those who feared prosecution lived as subjects until obtaining permission to exercise a right that had already been granted under law.

When I was in graduate school, a dean called me into his office and threatened to kick me out of school for exercising my 1st amendment rights. I told him that the Constitution guaranteed my rights and I intended to keep speaking and writing as I willed. Several weeks later I received a polite letter in legalize expressing the institute's position that I could indeed keep speaking whatever I wanted as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Several years ago, the prosecutor in the City of Lakewood threatened my wife and I with prosecution for exercising our clear rights under the law. We retained an attorney and went about our business. The prosecutors threats amounted to little more than vain attempts to appease some local interests.

In the case for which my wife served on the jury, the armed citizen had exercised his rights to protect his family and guests in his home. He drew his gun and held another individual until police arrived even though neither he nor his family nor his guests were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. The prosecutor was both appeasing liberal interests and attempting to set a precedent. The prosecutor lost, because Ohio law allows a gun to be drawn in some situations that might not justify deadly force, and the jury decided drawing the gun was reasonable given the facts of the case.

So you are correct in your implication that an overzealous prosecutor can cause you some expense and inconvenience if you draw your gun but aren't legally justified to shoot someone. But I've had bureaucrats threaten legal grief for lots of things. They usually back down when they realize you've got both the wherewithal and the inclination to resist their bullying and assert your full rights as a citizen. And even if they don't back down, beating them in court will slow them down a bit the next time they get an urge to bully an honest citizen.

Michael Courtney




There's not a nice way to say it, but I'm not inclined to argue with someone who has so much to say, you've given alot of thought to your opinion, but there's so much of it I don't have the time it takes to counter you point by point. There's a difference of mindset. Frankly, you have no fear of wielding your gun, I am cautious about the implications of doing so. That is all.

Do as you will, you're a grown man and know the risks.

I'll do the same.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:50:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:

There's not a nice way to say it, but I'm not inclined to argue with someone who has so much to say, you've given alot of thought to your opinion, but there's so much of it I don't have the time it takes to counter you point by point. There's a difference of mindset. Frankly, you have no fear of wielding your gun, I am cautious about the implications of doing so. That is all.

Do as you will, you're a grown man and know the risks.

I'll do the same.



Aw shucks I thought this was going to be a 10 page thread! I had the popcorn going and my A-team boxers on!
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:58:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnnyMcEldoo:

Originally Posted By swingset:

There's not a nice way to say it, but I'm not inclined to argue with someone who has so much to say, you've given alot of thought to your opinion, but there's so much of it I don't have the time it takes to counter you point by point. There's a difference of mindset. Frankly, you have no fear of wielding your gun, I am cautious about the implications of doing so. That is all.

Do as you will, you're a grown man and know the risks.

I'll do the same.



Aw shucks I thought this was going to be a 10 page thread! I had the popcorn going and my A-team boxers on!



I know what you mean, I must be losing my pugilistic nature. All those religious threads with Garandman must have tamed me.

Just don't feel like arguing on the net much anymore. It's like playing tennis with a wall.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:50:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.



Not all Democrats are anti-gunners......but it seems that MOST anti-gunners are democrats......there are plenty of anti-gunners in the Republican party too... Arnold Schwarzeneggar ring any bells???.....I have yet to hear of any of California's insane gun laws being repealed....



That's true, you can name a few anti-gun Republicans, we have a couple right here in Ohio, but the democrat party has gun confiscation as one of the major planks of its platform, while the Republican party generally supports the Second Amendment. If your party were in charge we would have had a renewal of the "assault weapons" ban, made permanent and worse. If your party were in charge we would have Supreme Court nominees who think the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, and we would be setting the stage for judicial activists to eliminate ALL our gun rights. You support the party of Hillary, Diane Feinswine, Chucky Schumer, Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Barak Osama bin Obama, Ted Kennedy, Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, Michael Moore, etc. ad nauseum. There is no way for any gun owner to justify that to me.

I assume that you at least follow the spirit of your party and refuse to own any "assault weapons", "saturday night specials", "sniper rifles", or "weapons of war". Your guns better consist of only single shot or double barrel shotguns, or I'll tell your socialist buddies.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 6:48:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By swingset:
There's a difference of mindset. Frankly, you have no fear of wielding your gun, I am cautious about the implications of doing so. That is all.



I have no fear of negative legal consequences of drawing my gun in circumstances where both Ohio law and court precedents clearly indicate that the action is legal.

I have been clear that there is no Ohio law against "brandishing", that Ohio law allows for the use of "reasonable" force to prevent certain crimes, and I have refered to a court case where a CHL holder was acquitted because the jury found that drawing a gun was a reasonable response to the situation.

Is drawing a gun the best tactical move in every case where it is legal to do so? No.

Is drawing a gun the wisest move in every case where it is legal to do so? No.

I once had an irate individual waving a 2x4 over my head with the obvious threatening implication.
The threat of great bodily harm was clear, and the man had intent, ability, and opportunity. It would have been a good shoot. I diffused the situation with some kind and calming words, and perhaps a silent prayer.

But there are some situations where one wants to have his gun already in his hand when things reach the red stage. If it is possible to draw discretely, I like to have a gun in my hand every time things go to condition orange.

Michael Courtney
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:55:58 PM EDT
I have to agree with the point of not convicting the guy with what you read in the newspaper or heard on the evening news. How many times have we ALL cursed at these same reporters and news outlets when they obviously misrepresented the facts with any story having to do with firearms? The media in this country no longer report the news, they have an agenda and twist and bend the facts to fit it or to make the story more sensational to sell papers or attract viewers. If Dan Rather says all gun owners are toothless illiterate hillbillys using guns to make up for undersize genitalia (wait, I think he DID say that didnt he?) does that make it true? Even if the reporter wasn't trying to further an agenda, they are still not incapable of being wrong (12 miners come to mind, may they rest in peace) Don't forget that the men Mr. Guetz (spl?) shot in the sub way were portrayed as the victims of a deranged gun nut in the media until AFTER his trial was over and then we learned just what kind of scum they were (and how screwed up New Yorks laws are when it was determined that he had every reason to fear for his life and was justified in shooting them, but broke New Yorks law by having the gun he shot them with and was sent to prison for it). I don't put much stock in much of anything the media puts out. If I did, all guns would be bad, all semi autos would be machine guns, any gun that doesnt show up in a western movie would be an assault weapon and the second amendment isn't an individual right but so the state can have the modern equivilent of a malitia, the national guard. If it came down the way it was reported, then he deserves everything he gets. But don't believe everything the news people tell you.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:39:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:

Originally Posted By JarheadPatriot:

Originally Posted By ArmdCtzn:
You "gun loving democrats" need to look at the party you're supporting.
You are supporting the enemy.



Not all Democrats are anti-gunners......but it seems that MOST anti-gunners are democrats......there are plenty of anti-gunners in the Republican party too... Arnold Schwarzeneggar ring any bells???.....I have yet to hear of any of California's insane gun laws being repealed....



That's true, you can name a few anti-gun Republicans, we have a couple right here in Ohio, but the democrat party has gun confiscation as one of the major planks of its platform, while the Republican party generally supports the Second Amendment. If your party were in charge we would have had a renewal of the "assault weapons" ban, made permanent and worse. If your party were in charge we would have Supreme Court nominees who think the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, and we would be setting the stage for judicial activists to eliminate ALL our gun rights. You support the party of Hillary, Diane Feinswine, Chucky Schumer, Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Barak Osama bin Obama, Ted Kennedy, Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, Michael Moore, etc. ad nauseum. There is no way for any gun owner to justify that to me.

I assume that you at least follow the spirit of your party and refuse to own any "assault weapons", "saturday night specials", "sniper rifles", or "weapons of war". Your guns better consist of only single shot or double barrel shotguns, or I'll tell your socialist buddies.



....To be quite honest, I was out of the Marine Corps for sixteen years before I bought a weapon....and my first weapon was A NO BAN BUSHMASTER M-4....EEEEEEEEYYYYYAAAAHHHH!!!!.....lol....I honestly never voted with my gun rights in mind....my family always preached the Democratic line of bull, so I just followed it.....but as I grow older, and hopefully WISER, my opinions and who I vote for have been changing......I would NEVER, REPEAT, NEVER.....give someone who supports abolishing the second amendment my vote......I like my weapons too much, now that I have some.......I do indeed own an "assault weapon", and a pistol with some "high capacity" magazines.....and anyone who wants to take them from me can pry them from my cold dead hands....
Page Hometown » Ohio
Top Top