Why they earn the big bucks
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 By Mike Maurer
Chances are fair that I agree with what’s written below the fold, but how would I know?
the person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim’s residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor (this provision does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim’s act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underyling conduct that prompted the victim’s exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence) and provides that recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person’s legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against the victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or the misdemeanor (R.C. 2307.60(B)(2)(b) and (c) and (3)).
That’s only part 2 of a two-part exemption in the Castle Doctrine law signed by the governor yesterday.
Supposedly it will protect gun owners who are unfortunate enough to have to use their weapons from being sued by the people who violated their persons to begin with. Can’t wait to see the lawyers and judges loosed on that sentence alone. (The governor called the bill “common sense legislation”, which brutally distinguishes it from every other bill he’s signed. If he says so, I guess. I suppose it can be common sense even if the common person can’t read it.)
In other news, a grandpa got into a verbal back and forth with a much younger coach, several of them it sounds like, and was chased off the field. Unfortunately, or so one of the coaches claims, grandpa drew his gun and ended up being arrested. He had a concealed carry permit. This will be an interesting case. Was grandpa in legitimate fear? Doesn’t seem a likely circumstance, although doubtless he wasn’t the only jerk on the ballfield; what was a coach doing following him off the field anyway? In any case, a bit of advice for the short-tempered: Don’t carry concealed. If you think all the idiots in the world deserve shooting, you’ve got the wrong idea. The ammunition cost alone would be prohibitive.
Tags: General Assembly, Observations, Strickland
