4 recent self-defense shootings raise questions about law, safety

[spin]

9:15 PM Sunday, October 11, 2009

DAYTON — In a recent four-week period, four local residents who were threatened by armed individuals opened fire, shooting the people who had allegedly drawn or fired the weapons first. One incident left a would-be robber dead after a homeowner shot and killed him inside his home.

It’s a recent trend that leaves police torn between public safety concerns and law enforcement objectives.

“If your life is genuinely in danger ... I would expect people to fight for their lives or their family’s lives,” said Dayton police Lt. Patrick Welsh, a former prosecuting attorney. “But we also encourage people to think, ‘What can I do to avoid being placed in that situation in the first place?’ ”

None of the four people who fired in the Dayton cases face any criminal charges. Ohio’s Castle Doctrine Law, which went into effect last year, allows residents to defend their homes and occupied vehicles from invaders by any means necessary, including lethal force.

****snip****

• Aug. 28: Alphonso Hughes shot Ramon Austin in the leg on Fountain Ave. after Austin allegedly pointed an assault rifle at Hughes’ family outside their home. Hughes also grazed a man in a house across the street.

• Aug. 31: Facing two armed burglars inside his Huffman Avenue home, Bradley Fugate shot and killed one of the men, Danny L. Baker.

• Sept. 19: Bert Watts Sr., 72, shot Phillip Anderson from his car on Brooklyn Ave. after Anderson approached Watts, pointing an AK-47 assault rifle at him. Anderson was charged with aggravated robbery.

• Sept. 23: People in a house on Huffman Avenue returned fire and hit Richard Forbus Jr. after he fired into the home. Forbus has been charged with felonious assault.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/4-recent-self-defense-shootings-raise-questions-about-law-safety-343110.html

[onehandle]

1. Simpsons Episode: Cape Feare

*Transition to Simpson's house. The Police have finished "installing" their "security system."

Wiggum: (Plucks string) Now sideshow bob cant get in without me knowing and once a man is in your home anything you do to him is nice and legal.

Homer: Is that so? (Leans out window and calls to Ned.) Oh Flanders, won't you join me in my kitchen? (Homer waits to pounce Ned and pounds his fist into his hand.)

Wiggum: Uh, it doesn't work if you invite them in. (Except maybe in Ohio)

Ned: Hidely Hey!

Homer: Go home.

Ned: Toodly Doo!

[Merchant Marine]

4. Wiggum had it right

That's not how castle doctrine works.

[thunder rising]

2. WTF: a person approaches with an AK already aimed and somebody out-draws him???

What did he do, forget to load it?

[spin]

3. Must be a lot of assault rifles in Ohio...

or a newspaper incapable of telling the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle.

[doc03]

5. I think the one on August 31 was justified

but the others I have a problem with. The way I understand the law you can't just shoot someone that threatens you outside your home or car. Why are all these people carrying assault weapons around with them? I live in Ohio and I have never seen anyone carrying an assault weapons around. Dayton must be a tough neighborhood.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. You can shoot anyone who poses an obvious and imminent threat to your life.

No matter where it is.

[doc03]

8. Did these people have a CCW? Something in

this story just doesn't add up. You are just driving around in your car and someone approaches you with an assault weapon? You're in your yard and someone approaches your family with an assault weapon or starts firing on your house? What are all these people, gang members or something? If you were going to carjack or rob someones house would you use an AK-47? What are they calling an assault weapon anyway? Are they defining a knife or handgun as an assault weapon to make the shooting sound more justified? I guess if that would actually happen it would be justified. Now the one where the guy shoots someone for rummaging through his wife's unoccupied car that was just purely shooting someone over property. I'm not going near Dayton anymore, tough place.

[PavePusher]

10. No-one ever claimed all criminals are smart... n/t

[doc03]

6. They are trying to blame the CCW

but you don't need a CCW in your own home or on your property, car yes but not your yard. It doesn't say if any of these people had a CCW. The one case they mention where a guy shoots someone rummaging through their wife's unoccupied car is clearly wrong IMHO, the way I understand it you can't just shoot someone to protect property. I think that one should be prosecuted.

[PavePusher]

11. What is wrong with protecting my property? n/t

[doc03]

12. The CCW law is very clear you can't shoot someone

to simply protect property. Now if you are inside your house or inside your car and someone breaks in, under the Castle Doctrine you can assume they are armed and dangerous and the burden is on the criminals attorney to prove otherwise. Did you read about the guy a couple days ago that killed his girlfriend thinking she was an intruder? The CCW is to protect you or another person from imminent danger to ones life, property can be replaced. If I look outside and a kid is rummaging through my car I am certainly not going to kill him. They gave an example in concealed carry class. What if you come upon a guy beating another person with a ball bat? Can you shoot the guy with the ball bat to protect the other guy's life? Yes, maybe. But what if the person being beaten was the one that initiated the attack in the first place and you shoot the guy that is actually defending himself? in other words the CCW permit is a serious responsibility and you better be damn sure you know what you are getting into.

[TheWraith]

9. The lesson I get from this?

People trying to commit crimes with a big, bulky rifle get their asses shot by people with more accessible weapons.