Duke, they didn't omit anything in the manual. They straight out printed just the opposite of what you said. Besides the manual, your instructor is trained to teach these classes and answer questions not covered in the manual. Not that they are acting as legal council, but they educated in the topics of the manual much more thoroughly.<quoted text>
For the past ten years I've held the exact same license as both of those fine fellows.
What I'm telling you, after having looked over the manual, is that what is written in the manual is not a complete and accurate statement of the law under 2307.60 that bars recovery in tort by perps or their legal representatives/families under certain circumstances. The manual touches on SB184 on page 21 under the heading "Castle Doctrine, but doesn't provide aby statutory references. Take a look see.
My guess is that that information was left out of the manual for two specific reasons, but that would only be speculation upon my part.
First, 2307.60 doesn't only apply to people with CCW licenses...it applies under any circumstance where someone acts in self defense, defense of others, or in defending their home.
Second, the CCW manual was written for a specific purpose and for a specific audience, and I'm sure that the authors had some concerns about the possibility that some of those folks might misconstrue that information as providing them carte blanche to use their weapons more aggressively than the SB 184 permits.
If you think I'm mistaken, write to the AG's office and ask them to explain the protections provided against tort recovery under 2307.60, and the limitations involving innocent bystanders.
Read the statute. Its fairly straightforward.
The Castle Doctrine is different because when it comes to having a weapon, your car is considered your castle. It's sort of your temporary home. The Castle Doctrine does provide civil suit protection, so if you shoot somebody who tries to harm you in your car, you are protected from liability through the Castle Doctrine. If you step out of your car and shoot somebody, you are not. I know it's crazy, but that's what this manual and the teachers of these classes say. It was also explained to us that the reason the Castle Doctrine was used was so they could slip in that protection for the licensee. A
Again, we cannot afford liability protection to our officers yet alone armed citizens:
Mom sues Cleveland police officers after son's death following Taser incident
By: Tina Kaufmann, newsnet5.com
CLEVELAND - A lawsuit has been filed by a mother who said her son was shocked with a Taser by Cleveland police earlier this year and later died from the events of the evening.
The incident happened on New Year's Eve 2010. Rodney Brown Sr., 40, was driving on E. 113th Street when Cleveland police stopped him for driving without headlights.
Reportedly, Brown was ordered by authorities to get out of his car and proceed to the back. Brown then questioned why he was pulled over and that's when it reportedly all began.
Brown is suing police officers Michael Chapman and Belal Ilain, plus others not named in the wrongful death lawsuit. Shirley Brown is requesting a jury trial and that she be awarded all compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and other costs incurred.
Read more: http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/c...