In addition to the "Stand Your Ground" law helping one defend themselves, I find that such a law also can assist one in saving their property.
In Ohio, there are three laws that pertain to self-defense. One is the self-defense provision of the criminal codes. Chapter 2901.05 of the General Provisions states “The condition under which self-defense is justified, including defense of home or vehicle.” The second is Ohio's conceal and carry law, which allows citizens to carry hidden firearms in the interest of self-defense. The third is the Castle Doctrine, Senate Bill 184, which adds a provision to the self-defense law which eliminates the requirement that someone must attempt to flee before using deadly force, when the attack occurs in the home. The goal of self-defense laws are for one main reason: a person should not be punished for harming or killing another person if it occurs in self-preservation. However, self-defense laws also serve a second purpose in that they restrict the circumstances under which it is legally justifiable to kill someone else in the name of self-preservation. In Ohio, for instance, these circumstances extend not only to invasion of a person's home, but also of his vehicle. So it might be justifiable in Ohio to kill someone if he is attempting to get into a person's car to hurt him, but not in other states. How do we tell the difference between Murder and Self Defense?
Like most laws, Ohio's statutes are written with a "reasonableness" provision, to limit the circumstances where it's considered legal to take the life of another human being. This is why self-defense is considered a rebuttable defense and left up to the criminal defendant to raise on his own behalf. The Castle Doctrine makes it a bit different in cases where the incident occurs inside a person's home. Under those circumstances, it is now up to the prosecution to prove the self-defense was not justified. I argue that individuals should not have to be incarcerated in act of self-defense that ends in the death of an intruder because it’s unjust.
I find that in the cluster of all the chaos, the families pay dearly. When you consider, the economic value, to the everyday process of living.
Should anyone be blamed for anothers violent actions toward them that results in that person’s death?
I argue that no one should be blamed for another individuals violent actions toward someone, that result’s in that persons death, or lost of life. When you think of the spiritual aspect to anyone losing there life , you think of who is right and who is wrong in every moral sense. Yet in a society we are given laws, rules, and regulations of what constitutes what society see’s fit as right or wrong. On a higher spiritual level we would all agree that when some one aggressively approaches you to physically harm you, your family, or any area in which you are occupying, it gives you the right to defend, protect, or fight back your assailant in any way to keep your life. It is only when a person is placed in that position of defending there life, do they began to understand the importance of not blaming a person for anothers violent actions against them that results in that persons death.
Now you have to look at the mindset of those individuals who believe no one should take anyone's life that is a human being, such as those who oppose the death penalty. “The death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white”. “American Civil Liberties Union”(par.1). Which shows that economics play a part in ones legal defense to be exonerated for defending there on life. Yet the state or those in the position to prosecute deems that when a life is lost someone must pay the price for the lost of life. I believe that“Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated, for every 10 that are executed”(1). I argue that the families pay a financial price to earn freedom for there love one to be found innocent. Yet being put up against the state or government no one is guaranteed to be found innocent with less resource, and a law which does not fight for them.
In Ohio, there are three laws that pertain to self-defense. One is the self-defense provision of the criminal codes. Chapter 2901.05 of the General Provisions states “The condition under which self-defense is justified, including defense of home or vehicle.” The second is Ohio's conceal and carry law, which allows citizens to carry hidden firearms in the interest of self-defense. The third is the Castle Doctrine, Senate Bill 184, which adds a provision to the self-defense law which eliminates the requirement that someone must attempt to flee before using deadly force, when the attack occurs in the home. The goal of self-defense laws are for one main reason: a person should not be punished for harming or killing another person if it occurs in self-preservation. However, self-defense laws also serve a second purpose in that they restrict the circumstances under which it is legally justifiable to kill someone else in the name of self-preservation. In Ohio, for instance, these circumstances extend not only to invasion of a person's home, but also of his vehicle. So it might be justifiable in Ohio to kill someone if he is attempting to get into a person's car to hurt him, but not in other states. How do we tell the difference between Murder and Self Defense?
Like most laws, Ohio's statutes are written with a "reasonableness" provision, to limit the circumstances where it's considered legal to take the life of another human being. This is why self-defense is considered a rebuttable defense and left up to the criminal defendant to raise on his own behalf. The Castle Doctrine makes it a bit different in cases where the incident occurs inside a person's home. Under those circumstances, it is now up to the prosecution to prove the self-defense was not justified. I argue that individuals should not have to be incarcerated in act of self-defense that ends in the death of an intruder because it’s unjust.
I find that in the cluster of all the chaos, the families pay dearly. When you consider, the economic value, to the everyday process of living.
Should anyone be blamed for anothers violent actions toward them that results in that person’s death?
I argue that no one should be blamed for another individuals violent actions toward someone, that result’s in that persons death, or lost of life. When you think of the spiritual aspect to anyone losing there life , you think of who is right and who is wrong in every moral sense. Yet in a society we are given laws, rules, and regulations of what constitutes what society see’s fit as right or wrong. On a higher spiritual level we would all agree that when some one aggressively approaches you to physically harm you, your family, or any area in which you are occupying, it gives you the right to defend, protect, or fight back your assailant in any way to keep your life. It is only when a person is placed in that position of defending there life, do they began to understand the importance of not blaming a person for anothers violent actions against them that results in that persons death.
Now you have to look at the mindset of those individuals who believe no one should take anyone's life that is a human being, such as those who oppose the death penalty. “The death penalty system in the US is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white”. “American Civil Liberties Union”(par.1). Which shows that economics play a part in ones legal defense to be exonerated for defending there on life. Yet the state or those in the position to prosecute deems that when a life is lost someone must pay the price for the lost of life. I believe that“Innocent people are too often sentenced to death. Since 1973, over 140 people have been released from death rows in 26 states because of innocence. Nationally, at least one person is exonerated, for every 10 that are executed”(1). I argue that the families pay a financial price to earn freedom for there love one to be found innocent. Yet being put up against the state or government no one is guaranteed to be found innocent with less resource, and a law which does not fight for them.