Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Store

In most states, when someone claims self-defense in an altercation that ends up in court, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove it wasn’t self-defense. However, Ohio law currently places the burden of proof on the defender to prove it was self-defense.

Bill 228 in Ohio wants to change Ohio law like the laws in all others states, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the defense.

The bill was passed on 7-3 vote by the House Federalism and Interstate Relations Committee.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Joe Biden drop out of the Presidential race because of his inappropriate touching of women?

  • Should Joe Biden drop out of the Presidential race because of his inappropriate touching of women?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Keep and Bear updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The bill was the result of an Arizona case involving a man who was being attacked by a man who was yelling he was going to kill him. Investigators said it was self-defense, but a prosecutor disagreed and arrested the defender.

(Gun Watch) – Ohio bill HB 228 has passed out of the House Federalism and Interstate Relations Committe on a seven to three vote. The vote was along party lines, with seven Republicans voting for the bill and the three Democrats voting against the bill.

The Ohio legislature is looking to reform Ohio law on self defense. Currently, Ohio appears to be the only state where the burden of proof in a self defense case rests with the defender. When a person claims self defense in Ohio, the defender has to prove that they acted in self defense. In nearly every other state, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove that the defender did *not* act in self defense. From the nraila.org:

HB 228 would place the burden of disproving a self-defense claim onto the prosecution, similar to how it is in almost every other state. Further, House Bill 228 would expand the locations that a person has no duty to retreat from before using force to defend themselves under both civil and criminal law.

Arizona flirted with this reversal of the traditional burden of proof for a decade. Prosecutors lobbied the legislature and reversed the ordinary burden of proof in 1996. It is much easier for prosecutors to obtain a conviction when the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant…

The man in the Arizona case who claimed self-defense was convicted due to the efforts of a Democratic prosecutor. The man, Harold Fish, spent over $700,000 in legal expenses and spent 3 years in prison before his conviction was over turned and he was freed. Sadly, he died three years later.

READ MORE HERE

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to a friend