Neighborhood On Edge After Burglary |...

Neighborhood On Edge After Burglary | Ohio News Network (ONN)

There are 69 comments on the 10TV WBNS story from Dec 28, 2010, titled Neighborhood On Edge After Burglary | Ohio News Network (ONN). In it, 10TV WBNS reports that:

GARFIELD HEIGHTS, Ohio - A Garfield Heights neighborhood was on edge Tuesday after police searched for two men suspected of a home burglary.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at 10TV WBNS.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#61 Jan 13, 2011
I'm all for self defense rights, but I'm not for using deadly force to solve bar brawls. If two adversaries both agree to meet, then it's not a victim--aggressor thing, it's an mutual acceptance thing. In my opinion, if two men wish to engage in physical contact, that's fine with me. But that doesn't meant the winner should be killed by a gun. Both men come unarmed (or equally armed) and battle it out.

Overturned rulings are very rare. One would have to show an extreme bias or hostility of a court before another judge will throw the ruling out. For whatever reason, the defendant believed that the judge in this case was fair enough to hear his trial and rule fairly.
mapleman

Cleveland, OH

#62 Jan 13, 2011
I bet money is why this guy is in jail. Why pick a trial by Judge? If he had his own attorney, it was the cost. How many people have $30,000 for a jury trial? It's sad that justice costs so much money. And if he had a public defender. LOL

There is no way this guy had adequate legal representation. Just by looking at the responses online, more people would have sided with him than the prosecutor. Incompetent lawyers will get you every time.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#63 Jan 14, 2011
That would depend if the jury went by their own interpretation of the law or the way it was written. Juries are instructed to put aside their personal beliefs and rule based on what the law is. Armchair jurors are fine until they are actually in the hot seat and listen to the prosecutor and how he describes what took place.

Like I said, once the guy opened the door for his aggressive friend, right there he screwed up. From the Castle Doctrine web site:

"Sec 2925.05 (B)(2)(a) The presumption set forth in division (B)(1) of this section does not apply if the person against whom the defensive force is used has a right
to be in, or is a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle."

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5758/

In this section alone, it disables the Castle Doctrine from being in effect. It has to be assumed by jurors that since the so-called victim opened his door for his friend, he allowed him to legally be there. Barging in was one persons account of what took place and is highly suspicious. That might hold water if he stated the guy entered through an unlocked door. But that's not what happened according to him. His testimony was that he opened the door on his own free will.
mapleman

Cleveland, OH

#64 Jan 14, 2011
Opening the door now allows people to come into your residence? LOL The police can't even do that. If you open up the door to the police they have to be allowed into your home, they can't walk in.

Like I said, if an old lady opens up the door to a neighborhood kid and he "barges" in, she no longer has a right to protect herself? If that's the law, change it.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#65 Jan 15, 2011
Again, you hit a gray area and it's up to a judge or jury to make that call. An old lady opening a door for a stranger who forces his way into the home is different than a guy opening a door for an acquaintance who he has a relationship with.

The law was written this way so that people don't abuse it. For instance, I find out a coworker told my employer something that ended up with me losing my job. So I invite him to my house for a few beers as he is unaware I have this information. He enters my home, and I pull my gun out and kill him. I tell police that we had an ongoing argument, and he barged in once I opened the door.

The police, prosecutor and jury would likely see through my story, and conclude that this was not a case of self defense, and the Castle Doctrine was not in effect. Now if we change the law as you say, these kinds of plots could go on all the time, and the law could be used for revenge instead of protection. You find out your wife or girlfriend is screwing around on you, so you get a hold of her cell phone while she is unaware, go through her text messages and find the lover. You text him from her phone asking him to meet you for a good time. He comes over assuming the message came from her, and you blow his head off. We simply can't have laws like that.
mapleman

Cleveland, OH

#66 Jan 15, 2011
On the flip side how does the state know that the wife's lover didn't come to your house being a stalker and the case was a true case of self-defense? This thing goes both ways.

Let the police and prosecutors do their job. If they find the wife was out of town when the text was sent, prosecute the guy for murder. If the guy just started stalking his lover and showed up to the house, self-defense.

Put the laws in place and let the prosecutors work for their money. People by and large are too dumb to get away with murder. Hell, people are too dumb for democracy to work. LOL
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#67 Jan 15, 2011
Okay, but how does one convince a jury that a text message came from the husband and not the wife? Do you really expect a cheating wife in love with a dead man to tell the truth about a text she claims she never sent?

I only gave a few examples. I'm sure more creative people can come up with even better ones. But the point is, using the Castle Doctrine to kill anybody in your home invites all kinds of problematic situations. There has to be some guidelines as to when the Castle Doctrine is in effect.

Basically, the Castle Doctrine is there for people who have intruders break into their home and threaten their life or bodily harm. That's it. It doesn't apply to guests so that the innocent can be protected as well.

I'm sure people have had beefs with you no different than I. Wouldn't you want to be protected if somebody set you up to enter their home so they could kill you legally under the Castle Doctrine? How about your children or girlfriend?

I'll give you a personal example: I just kept the security deposit from one of my former tenants. He had a dog that just about destroyed the carpeting. He drilled holes through the carpeting several inches from the baseboards to put in cable lines in several rooms. He was upset with me because I used his security deposit to repair some of his damage.

Okay, so he understand he has no chance at suing me in court. So he invites me to his new house to offer and pay for the damage the security deposit didn't cover. I walk into the home, and he blows me away. He tells the police that I was angry with him, and I actually came over uninvited to settle the score. I would want protection from this kind of plot, and the way the Castle Doctrine is written, I have that kind of protection.
mapleman

Cleveland, OH

#68 Jan 15, 2011
Why aren't people doing that now? I mean you can still use self-defense in cases you mentioned. Invite somebody over, blow them away and plant a gun in their hand.

Your examples can all happen right now. I go buy a gun or a knife, shoot somebody, plant it on them, and say they came to kill me. Self-defense.

I think states like Texas and Florida have more extensive self-defense and Castle doctrine laws and they don't suffer from mass set-up killings like you are referencing. And also, under current self-defense laws we don't have them.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#69 Jan 16, 2011
Police investigate all of these situations. If the door is not broken, or the residents know the parties in the house, that's a pretty good indicator that something might be suspicious. Can you break down your own door? Sure you can, but you better hope your neighbor didn't hear the gunshot, look outside, and see you break down the door.

We are both adults who stayed out of trouble and have no criminal record. If either you or i were shot in somebody's home, a red light would go off in investigators heads because it's unlikely a middle-aged guy decided to become a criminal in their 30's, 40's or 50's. Most criminals have a prison or criminal history--some dating back to their juvenile years. Clean cut working Americans seldom do things like breaking into a home.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Garfield Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Noise ordinance 13 hr xxxrayted 4
Does Oprah live in Maple Hts? (Jan '15) 19 hr W8GC 6
NODXA Used Rag, P E C K E R REEF. 19 hr W8GC 1
News Local Jews upset by Holocaust references in cam... (Jun '12) Mon swedenforever 123
W8GC, my Elmer for ham radio. Jul 26 W8URC 1
p u d h o l d e r Jul 25 W8GC Ebay 1
WB8N Help Wanted ! Jul 22 W8GC 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Garfield Heights Mortgages