Brandishing a Weapon in Ohio

[Big_Guy_4]

Folks, is there a qualified legal opinion out there somewhere?

In Ohio, what is the law regarding a CCW holder drawing his weapon but not firing to discourage a progressively threatening situation in public? I have heard opinions but not seen the legal document that says this is "brandishing a firearm" and subject to legal repercussions while actually shooting someone in a situation that meets the CCW deadly force parameters is OK.

I have searched everywhere I know short of spending the money on a lawyer. I have lots of opinions but no legal facts anyone can point to.

Help.

-Jim

 

[B2Tall]

This might not be the best place for legal advice. Like they say in lawyer's commercials on TV - "I'm a non-attorney spokesperson". Try to find an Ohio-related gun rights website. Often times real lawyers write columns, answer questions, and give advice on those sites....unlike us armchair lawyers.

Also, I hope you're not doing this in order to see what you can get away with in Ohio.

 

[WB9IIE]

I'm NOT an attorney, or an attorney spokesperson. My take on the situation is if it is serious enough to draw the weapon, it is serious enough to shoot.

 

[xdmgator]

I'm NOT an attorney, or an attorney spokesperson. My take on the situation is if it is serious enough to draw the weapon, it is serious enough to shoot.

I'm not an attorney but I god stay at a holiday inn last night oh never mind ... But I do subscribe to above statement

 

[Pokey1400]

I'm NOT an attorney, or an attorney spokesperson. My take on the situation is if it is serious enough to draw the weapon, it is serious enough to shoot.

Yes I agree.......but you don't have to shoot. Many of the gun magazines have stories of folks who have evaded very bad situations, by simply brandishing their firearm.

 

[Treo]

Folks, is there a qualified legal opinion out there somewhere?

Yes there is, it can be found in the office of an Attorney licensed to practice in the state of Ohio. Not on an internet forum.

Oh my, 5 minutes w/ google yields this

To prevail on a self-defense claim, the defender must prove that (1) the defender was not at fault in creating the violent situation, (2) the defender had a bona fide belief that he/she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that only means of escape was the use fo deadly force, and (3) that the defender did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger. State v. Robbins (1979) 58 Ohio St.2d 74. If a person in good faith and upon reasonable grouind believes that a family member is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, such person may use reasonably necessary force to defend the family member to the same extent as the person would be entitled to use force in self-defense. State v. Williford (1990) 49 Ohio St.3d 247. While there is a duty to retreat when there is a reasonable means of retreat available to escape the confrontation, there is no duty to retreat from one's home. Williford. Deadly force may not be used to protect mere property. (Can't find the case right now).

 

[Dana1956]

They talked about a guy who did that in our OHIO CCW class. Didn't draw, but just showed the guy in a Walmart parking lot. He went to jail. The story went that the CCW holder pulled into the Walmart parking lot and accidentally bumped the vehicle in front of him. The owner of that vehicle was on his way out of the store and saw what had happened. He approached the CCW holder in the parking lot and said, "Hey, you just hit my car!" The permit holder didn't draw but showed that he was armed and then walked into the store. He said he could sense that he was being watched in the store. When he came out of the store the local PD was there to arrest him for "brandishing" his weapon.

 

[Wyldekard]

You're gonna have to to spend the money on a lawyer and you still might not get a firm answer. Your scenario is a "grey area" situation that would you have to be resolved by a jury, most of which probably have never been in the situation and have never had a gun in their hand. They would be instructed to decide what a "reasonable" person would do in the same situation. Each one gets to decide individually what reasonable is and then they have merge those into a verdict.

 

[NavyLCDR]

They talked about a guy who did that in our OHIO CCW class. Didn't draw, but just showed the guy in a Walmart parking lot. He went to jail. The story went that the CCW holder pulled into the Walmart parking lot and accidentally bumped the vehicle in front of him. The owner of that vehicle was on his way out of the store and saw what had happened. He approached the CCW holder in the parking lot and said, "Hey, you just hit my car!" The permit holder didn't draw but showed that he was armed and then walked into the store. He said he could sense that he was being watched in the store. When he came out of the store the local PD was there to arrest him for "brandishing" his weapon.

Good. He should have been arrested for brandishing his weapon.

I am glad I don't live in Ohio, though. In Washington we can use deadly force to stop any felony that is about to be committed against anybody in our presence.

My personal opinion is that if you have to draw your firearm, even if you don't shoot, be the first one to call the police. It is better that you start the investigation looking towards the other party and the burden of proof being on them to prove that you were not justified in drawing your gun. If they call first, or an anti-gun witness calls the police first, you might end up being the subject of the investigation being required to prove that you were justified.

 

[Treo]

I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know Ohio law
If you’re going to introduce a weapon into a situation you had better be able to explain clearly and specifically what that person did that convinced you that you needed a gun to defend yourself.
If you don’t shoot you had better be able to explain what changed. Here is an example from my own experience.
At 0430 one morning I was walking through the parking lot of the apartment building I lived in after my morning run. As I passed a row of cars in the parking lot a Hispanic male emerged from between two of the cars and rushed me. The time of day, the fact that he had been hiding between the cars and the fact that he was rushing straight at me, all together convinced me that he was going to attack me if I didn’t stop him.
So, I drew my gun.
I didn’t shoot because when the alleged mugger saw the gun he ran.
If you can’t put all that together you’d probably better not draw

 

[S&W645]

Any forceable felony in Florida also Navy. I did find several bills that would have covered it in Ohio but they never seemed to have been passed.

 

[kelcarry]

Just another point. If you brandish your firearm, just remember that you have now put the other guy in imminent danger and you can get killed. It works both ways.
Ohio or not and as TREO said, if you present your firearm not as a brandishing, but as a precursor to using it within the next second or two, you better have a darn good reason and maybe witnesses that can attest to your imminent danger and ability to actually back down before you fire.

 

[Big_Guy_4]

Thank you all for your good responses.

1. "Go to the A. G. site for Ohio." (I have. No real answer.)

2. "Spending the money on a lawyer will probably not give me a specific answer." (I am afraid I agree. They hate to be tied down.)

3. "It is a gray area." (Like so much else in the CCW law)

4. "Don't even brandish unless you meet the three criteria for lethal defense in Ohio." (Solid logic.)

5. "Be the first to call police with your version of events." (Great opinion!)

I am 60, disabled and can no longer run from a bad situation like I use to (ran two marathons back in the day). I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to carry to protect myself and my wife in Ohio and will do all I can to preserve that right.

God bless all!

 

[Deserteagle]

4. "Don't even brandish unless you meet the three criteria for lethal defense in Ohio." (Solid logic.)

Very solid indeed.

Be careful with advice on this subject from this forum. Many people think waving guns around is okay. The rest of us will not pull out a deadly weapon until we are justified in using a deadly weapon as many others have stated. Disclaimer- Doesn't mean you have to use it.

 

[kelcarry]

Thank you all for your good responses.

1. "Go to the A. G. site for Ohio." (I have. No real answer.)

2. "Spending the money on a lawyer will probably not give me a specific answer." (I am afraid I agree. They hate to be tied down.)

3. "It is a gray area." (Like so much else in the CCW law)

4. "Don't even brandish unless you meet the three criteria for lethal defense in Ohio." (Solid logic.)

5. "Be the first to call police with your version of events." (Great opinion!)

I am 60, disabled and can no longer run from a bad situation like I use to (ran two marathons back in the day). I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to carry to protect myself and my wife in Ohio and will do all I can to preserve that right.

God bless all!

Being disabled, IMO, means diddly squat unless you presume you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury--those are the words that count. Further to my previous reply, being disabled is another reason to be more careful with brandishing--as I said, you brandish and the other guy is much better at this "gun stuff" than you and certainly more mobile than you, you can die for doing it.

 

[Treo]

Being disabled, IMO, means diddly squat unless you presume you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury--those are the words that count. Further to my previous reply, being disabled is another reason to be more careful with brandishing--as I said, you brandish and the other guy is much better at this "gun stuff" than you and certainly more mobile than you, you can die for doing it.

I disagree, being disabled changes the circumstance. I am fairly active and in good shape it would be a lot harder for me to claim fear of my life over an unarmed attacker than a disabled person.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Treo: I am not saying that being disabled does not give you, perhaps, more of a reason but it still must rise to the level of imminent danger. Just being in a wheelchair or one arm etal does not give you a license to think further out of the box when it comes to imminent danger. There is a limit in this argument and it is not open-ended approval for the disabled. I think we are saying the same thing--I am just taking it to that level where "anything goes" if you are disabled seems to be creeping into the conversation, which is not the way this whole "imminent danger"/"brandishing" is suppose to be legally acceptable.

 

[Big_Guy_4]

You guys are right, of course. A disability does not give you a legal authority or excuse.

My point in bringing up the disability thing is to help frame the reason why I acquired a CCW in the first place. With a cane and inability to run or even walk fast, the likely hood of my being able to successfully retreat from a dangerous situation is improbable if the antagonist persists.

I have found that a visible disability and advanced age makes you a target unlike when I was younger and in great shape. My difficulty in retreating will probably mean I have to deal with whatever threats confront me as much as I try to avoid them. I also can't imagine actually taking a life and was hoping for some way to simply warn off an attacker without causing harm.

 

[Rhino]

In Ohio, what is the law regarding a CCW holder drawing his weapon but not firing to discourage a progressively threatening situation in public?

If done in accordance with self defense, it would be one of the concealed carry and/or castle doctrine statutes, possibly combined with some others. But I'm sensing you're asking about it being done improperly since you use the term, "brandishing". That would very likely fall under section 2917.31 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), Inducing Panic. You can read it here:

Lawriter - ORC - 2917.31 Inducing panic.

As to when and how that statute may or may not be applied, or how any others might also come into play, not even an attorney could answer that question with absolute certainty because no two situations are ever exactly alike. An attorney might be able to give you probabilities based on hypotheticals or based on an ongoing case, but there are never any guarantees.

 

[Rhino]

I disagree, being disabled changes the circumstance.

As far as Ohio goes, that is quite true, and I suspect that's why Big_Guy_4 made the comment. Ohio has a 'duty to retreat' written into their self defense law. Besides the obvious fact that being disabled means less physical threat is required to constitute a danger to life and limb, it also affects the ability to meet the requirement to retreat from the threat as required by Ohio law. I'm disabled too. What would be merely damaging to most other people could easily be life threatening to me. That affects both my right and my ability for self defense. And since I am no longer physically able to run, the duty to retreat when not in my home or in my vehicle under Ohio law is much less stringent, because the avenues of retreat are far more limited for me than they are for most other people. So yes, being disabled can change the circumstances quite a bit.