I was proud to see I got a call out from Jim on the front page, if only because it demonstrates I met with success on my jaunt to Columbus. But, since it was BFA that asked me and others to find an example of wrongly convicted people so many years ago (and BFA who still never has) I thought it'd be fair to post what I think is a completely reasonable and pro-gun counterpoint to burden shifting under SB180. I'm sure BFA will grant me the indulgence given that, in something I considered an act of class, decency, and respect, I didn't call them out by name in my public testimony. I kind of had the approach that friends can disagree at least somewhat respectfully.

Specifically, I believe that the bill legalizes killing CHL holders. I've listened to the testimony of those from both sides, and frankly, I think BFA's position on this bill is childish, like a toddler looking at something someone else has (which incidentally doesn't work well) and demanding to have it "just because."

The effort related to the law engages in the hubris to which many of us in the firearms community treat ourselves. Namely the assumption that we will win a firefight. As a person who is both happy when criminals are killed by people defending themselves and who also deals with the families of dead people who failed in trying to do so, I have the experience to tell you, justice does not exist for your death under this bill. Ever.

That is, if you die, your killer will go free. No rational jury can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that an armed dead man wasn't a threat to a live man who enjoys, at all times and places as established by this law, a presumption of self defense. As an ethical prosecutor, I won't even pursue a case where I don't believe that a rational jury could make such a finding behind a reasonable doubt. ,aybe you don't care about that. Maybe you fear the zero cases, ever, in the entire history of the state of Ohio, where even in the most nuthouse liberal jurisdiction someone has been wrongfully convicted so much that you don't care if the law avenges your death.

I don't. I want vengeance. In this life and the next. Don't miss the footnote in the attachment.

Written testimony is attached, I couldn't figure out how to make it go in the right order. I'll be anxiously awaiting the actual name of an actual person who was actually wrongfully convicticted by reason of this standard of law.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Wow, you had been away from this forum for over four years! I can see what brought you back. But be advised, hardly anybody (and certainly no BFA staffers) ever look around in here anymore. I know it's like 8 degrees out, but those really are crickets chirping in this place.

I agree with Bryan 100%. But with that said, I find the letter as self serving. As an assistant prosecutor you are afforded privileges us peon citizens are denied. You state that you carry everywhere; this presumes that includes the courtroom. That statement sets the tone of your support of almost 200 years of Ohio jurisprudence which is interesting in that Ohio law only dates back to 1953.

I have found in my many years of experience that most prosecutors are dishonest and would sell their mother down the river just to chalk-up a win. You actually believe that every conviction was a justified conviction. That is what your letter clearly says.

You are defending an indefensible law. I have major problems with prosecutors that don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. And, that is what you are promoting, guilty until proven innocent.

Your belief effects peoples lives. That effects your digression which results in unjust prosecutions. It is obvious you don't believe in judging the law and the facts.

Have a good day.

Color of law,

I thank you for perfectly making my point about BFA’s position on this legislation in every way possible.

John

It is even worse than that. Thieves, rapists, murderers etc...are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but only those who defend themselves or those defend their families from the aforementioned thieves, rapists, murderers etc...are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and only in Ohio.

Shame on you Mr. prosecutor. Great post Color of Law.

Liberty,

My choice in addressing your comment is to either 1) decide you know what the law is, and that you're lying about it to manipulate people who don't, or that 2) you don't know what the law is, and other people have lied to out about it, with you foolishly believing them.

I choose the latter.

Here we sit, a week later, no name. Never once.

And guess what ... everybody gets a presumption of innocence. It's true. This bill give the man who murders you, liberty, no matter the circumstances, a presumption of self-defense.

Arrogance is the reason for this bill. I meet too many good people taken too early by multiple violent felons to permit those people a presumption of self defense when they slay a CHL holder.

Anyway, still crickets on the name.

I have found the same thing. I really don't understand why. They really don't have to be like that to be effective. In fact, the few that I know who are honest and ethical are more effective, but it takes more work to be honest and ethical.

You don't know what you are talking about. SB 180 does not give violent attackers a presumption of self-defense. A defendant can only present evidence and argue self-defense if the judge predetermines that there is enough evidence to demonstrate that the defendant acted in self-defense. SB 180 merely shifts the burden of proof once a defendant is permitted to present self-defense as an affirmative defense.

If a dirt-bag smashes out the window of your car, shoots you, rapes your daughter and steels your car, that dirt-bag is under absolutely no obligation to prove anything. No burden whatsoever is placed upon the dirt-bag. Mr. Prosecutor is required to prove each and every element of each and every crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no presumption that the dirt-bag acted in self-defense. (innocent until proven guilty)

But if the dirt-bag tries that to one of us CHL holders and gets shot, Mr. Prosecutor may be able to chalk-up another win by prosecuting the CHL holder.

Under current Ohio law, Mr. Prosecutor only has to prove that a CHL holder caused death or injury to the dirt-bag beyond a reasonable doubt, which would be easy because the CHL holder would hand over his glock 19 and tell the police "sure I shot the dirt-bag--wouldn't you." If the CHL holder can show enough evidence to the judge in order to be permitted to present a defense of self-defense and have the jury instructed to consider self-defense, the CHL holder then is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she acted in self-defense. (guilty until proven innocent--and only in Ohio)

If SB 180 becomes law, Mr. Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the CHL holder caused death or injury and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the CHL holder did not act in self-defense. The burden would not shift to the CHL holder. (innocent until proven guilty--just like every other state in the country)

For more info on SB 180, follow this link: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/senate- ... st-hearing.

Because what is better when it comes to re-election time, a prosecutor with a 50% win ratio or one with 100% win? Sure, some cases may hurt them, but overall, come election time most forget about them.

False. Not only are you wrong, I can assure you that you will not encounter another person who is more knowledgeable on this topic.



Which occurs upon his request to do so by stating that he intends to make such an argument. That is the standard utilized by the judiciary in permitting a defendant to present self-defense. I know you think it's different. That is because you are not knowledgeable in this area.



False, the person is presumed to have acted in self-defense, and to have made all of those actions based on the provocations and actions of your now-dead self, and your now-dead daughter. Unfortunately, he used a condom and your daughter was known to be promiscuous. His presumption of acting in self-defense will require the state to prove he did not act in self defense when you were attacking him with your gun. That's why he shot you. The signs of recent sexual activity with your daughter were due to the fact that she is a slut; she also attacked him and he used your car to escape after he fought you both off. He was in additional fear because he was facing a superior number of attackers, and they were also in a car, which he could not escape despite his efforts as he was on foot.



False. Never in the history of Ohio, ever, even once. Not one time. Never. Ever. Has any person been wrongfully convicted under Ohio's current self-defense standard. This is an accepted fact, the challenge has been thrown down repeatedly for over ten years to find a single person wronged by this standard and it can't be done. Under the new proposed law, the killing of an armed Ohio CHL licensee by armed felons is legalized under numerous circumstances. Dead CHL holders do not testify. Live felons who have a presumption of self-defense have an inadmissible criminal record. Congrats, dead CHL holder. You should have been better trained and had a better advocacy group, because your killer is going to walk free.



Not false.

Ohio's laws are different, and better, than the laws in other states. That's why we have better outcomes than other states. That's why we have zero, zilch, and no outcomes that have been negative for people defending themselves.

While our firearms rights groups have been advocating to legalize murder for murderers, street-thugs, gang-bangers, drive-by-shooters, and every dirt-bag on the street; Aligning themselves with every criminal advocacy organization in the State, jumping the shark in every way imaginable by imagining a boogey man that doesn't exist - our enemies have been circling the wagons and have concentrated on our flanks.

We have a governor looking to take out AR15's. We have "assault weapons" bans being introduced in the legislature that the governor supports which ban EVERY SINGLE PISTOL ON THE MARKET. In the federal government mainstream republicans like Marco Rubio are embracing 10 round mag limits.

This is the type of nonsense that happens when people who are supposed to be our advocates in the second amendment arena take their eye off the ball and naval-gaze at conspiracy-theory bullsh*t that has empirically and provably never once been a problem. It's embarrassing. Every single one of you people who have embraced this should be ashamed. You know full well this is a fundraising, ignorance-baiting, pile of malarkey based on the fact that ... for a brief, what should have been enjoyable 10 month period, there wasn't a perceivable threat to our rights.

We should have been directing our efforts to outreach, education, expanding interest to women, children, other demographics. Instead, it was being directed to fixing imagined problems that have been repeatedly proven do not exist. Now we're back in middle of it. Under a full onslaught. We have a Congress of surrender-monkey squishes, a republoRat governor, a President who is more than willing to 'deal,' ... and what have we been wasting our efforts on? Pretending there's some conspiracy among prosecutors who want a "win."

Newsflash.

Prosecuting people who defend themselves against dirtballs isn't a win. Dirtballs getting shot by good guys is a win.

Get some priorities. There's actual enemies to our rights out there, and you're wasting your time.