Innocent before guilty, new self-defense law sides with homeowners protecting their 'castles'

Innocent before guilty, new self-defense law sides with homeowners protecting their ‘castles’

COLUMBUS – A homeowner who injures, maims or even kills an intruder is on the right side of the law, starting today in Ohio. The so-called “castle doctrine” law assumes the owner was acting in self-defense and shifts the burden to police and prosecutors to prove otherwise.
Until today, people who attacked intruders had to prove they were acting in self-defense.

About 20 states have similar laws with all types of variations. Some states do not limit the self-defense presumption to the person’s home but apply it to the workplace or even on the street, if the person is threatened.
In fact, Ohio’s provision extends to inside vehicles. And, as it is elsewhere, Ohio’s castle doctrine – so named for the popular premise that ‘one’s home is one’s castle’ – is steeped in controversy.

Ohio prosecutors and police chiefs associations are against it. They say the law provides legal cover for bad guys to hurt people who had absolutely no intent of harming them.

My state, New York, is not one of the twenty that recognises the “castle doctrine”. In fact, citizens in their homes have a “duty to retreat” when faced with intruders.

What about the police and their “no knock” rights? That may be why they are against these castle laws.

When I was a child, the police presented themselves at the front door and knocked, even if they had a warrant. If they did not have a warrant they had no right to stay or enter.

Now they break into houses and shoot pets and in the case of the Halloween party a few years ago, they walk around the outside without a warrant and kill someone who points a plastic gun at them. Constitutional rights are not the same as 50 years ago. We live in a police state now and, as is the case with virtually all police states, the people voted it in themselves. With conservatives leading the charge and liberals following along like puppy dogs.

Of course with 300 million people instead of the 150 million 50 years ago and with people crammed together, there probably have to be fewer rights. Our economy and taxing structure is a Ponzi Scheme based on the infusion of cheap labor. Again both liberals and conservatives are responsible.

  • kathie :bowdown:

Killing someone over material goods, when you have the option of running away and preserving both your life and the other persons life. Christianity at it best is to kill to protect the PS3… What ever happend to not being attached to worldly goods?

How can you be sure, that some one breaking into your house is only going to take your material goods and not yours and your children’s lives?


If someone has broken into my house, I think with today’s social climate, you will forgive me for assuming they are there to sexually attack myself or my children or to kidnap one of us for same. DH and I will shoot first and ask questions later. If all he wanted was the (cheap) flat screen TV, well then, sucks to be that guy and I hope he repented before he bled out!

And I haven’t checked for a fact, but I am pretty sure that in Arizona, legally we would be fine. Anyone is allowed to carry openly here. Concealed carry permits are not hard to get either, as long as you can pass the fingerprint and background clearance.

The National Rifle Association probably has some information on this.

In some states, like California, it is recommended that one retreat to their bedroom and then shoot anyone who follows them there.

I think the previous poster is correct that here in Arizona it is probably looser. For example, I could walk into the bank with a Colt 45 in plain view in a holster without any permit of any kind. If one conceals a firearm, one needs a permit, however.

Where I am, about 20 miles out of a town in northern Arizona, there have been a couple of killings in the last year or so. The closest one was a few miles down the dirt road I come in on. Two people were shot by their caretaker; the wife died and the husband was severely wounded. He was able to drive to the little store and the fire department was able to attend to him before he was airlifted to a major hospital for several months.

I did not know the couple, but I did know their caretaker on the place. He was the gunman. He was a nice guy and in fact everyone who knew him better thought he had just cracked. We’ll never know because he shot himself out on the freeway.

One thing is clear, however. If he did not have a gun, no one would have been shot. There was no record of instability in his background; he just snapped. The whole thing was very sad.

  • kathie :bowdown:

Someone enters our home when the children are home and I would not hesitate to protect them with deadly force. There is no known way to determine the intentions of the person invading our private space.

If on the other hand I came home to find my house had been entered and I did not know if they were still in the home I would retreat and wait for help. One presents a clear and present danger to family and home. The other does not.

No, he would have stabbed them, run them down with a car, or poisoned them. Are we going to pass laws making people liable for the use and possession of knives, cars, or antifreeze?

Someone who wants to kill will find a way. A gun is a tool, no more, no less.

Do you think iran should have nuclear weapons? Its a tool no more no less.

Are you equating the terror-sponsor state of Iran, run by a certifiable nutcase, bent on importing radical Islamofascism throughout the world, with your standard, law-abiding American homeowner?! :eek: Jeez, and people say this board has too many conservatives on it…

No, Iran should not have nukes. It is not in our national interest, nor those of our allies, for Iran to have nukes. We should be prepared to go to war to stop that from happening. Israel already is, because it is literally a matter of life or death for them… and they are our ally, so we have to be prepared to support them.

i agree… totally.

people voted it in themselves.

sometimes… sometimes not… sometimes govt. people (police, etc.) don’t care much what is voted in and what is not…

With conservatives leading the charge and liberals following along like puppy dogs.

i am ultra-conservative (comparatively speaking)… and i do NOT believe in this kind of thing… I am like a prominent personality in the media these days… I decide things " issue by issue…" & couldn’t care less what the party line is… God doesn’t care, so why should we??

Of course with 300 million people instead of the 150 million 50 years ago and with people crammed together, there probably have to be fewer rights.

That’s nonsense… & that is not true about our country being 300 million now and 150 mil 50 yrs ago… I’m not buying that one bit. We have had abortion on demand for 35 years now, along with sterilization, people having fewer (many times NO) children… birth-control methods of every kind… OUr population is at below replacement level…


From the U.S. Census Bureau:

U.S. Population in 1950 - approx. 151,000,000
U.S. Population today - approx. 301,000,000

Yes, but the law does not require everyone to be a Christian. On a case by case basis, a person might choose another option, but if he must kill an intruder, he should be assumed innocent in his own home.

murder is against the law - whether you are Christian or not.

To kill someone just because they happen to be in your back yard (for who knows what reason) is ridiculous… (unethetic, amoral)

well… i don’t know why you would get this set of statistics and someone else would get another.

I still don’t believe those ones… can’t remember where i got mine but as stated, w/ abortion, birth-control, nobody having children… don’t see how in the @%$@# we could have an increase in population…

never did trust “statistics”… :rolleyes:

If I heard someone downstairs, and I could call the police/protect my children from up there, I wouldn’t go looking for trouble. If I found an intruder with my TV in their arms, I’d assume they were only looking to rob me and I wouldn’t shoot them. If they were running towards the door or window, I wouldn’t shoot them. Otherwise, I would probably shoot them.

ETA: That is to say, if I still lived in Ohio.

if i understand the new law correctly… my opinion is it is too liberal… Hmm… was going to say unConsittutional… but our Const. supports the right to kill unborn children… so since we have no right to live…

maybe the law is actually, now that i think about it, quite consistent… :rolleyes:

The situation described is not murder, though. That is the whole point. Also, no one is saying to shoot people in their back yard. That is a strawman.

The law gives a homeowner right to kill the man breaking in to steal a television. It is not legally murder. It may not be Christian but it is not illegal.

Well, what can I tell you - I got my stats from the Census Bureau website. If you can provide statistics that support your view of population growth, I’d be intereted in seeing it.

BTW…The current estimated population is up to 305,000,000. (From the above referenced website.)

As a resident of Ohio, I don’t think I’d be on very solid legal footing if I killed someone who happened to be in my backyard. But, anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling is up to no good. Like the previous poster, if I was upstairs, I probably wouldn’t go downstairs and confront them. I’d get on the phone and call the cops. And, I’d be at the top of the stairs with a shotgun. If they started up, they’d get one warning. If they kept coming, things would get ugly. As another poster said, I hope they repent before they bleed out.

we are not breeding at replacement rate, 2.2 kids per couple. however we have massive imigragtion and longer lifespans. also birth rates are calculated every 10 years with the census, so even if we arent breeding at that level now it doesnt mean we havent been.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit