A person may defend another only if the protected person would have

had the right to use deadly force in self-defense themselves. Under Ohio

law, a person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,

just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any more

force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm threatened.

A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect another, has

to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that the person he protected

was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that

deadly force was the only way to protect the person from that danger.

Furthermore, the defendant must also show that the protected person

was not at fault for creating the situation and did not have a duty to leave

or avoid the situation.

A person may defend another only if the protected person would have

had the right to use deadly force in self-defense themselves. Under Ohio

law, a person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,

just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any more

force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm threatened.

A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect another, has

to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that the person he protected

was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that

deadly force was the only way to protect the person from that danger.

Furthermore, the defendant must also show that the protected person

was not at fault for creating the situation and did not have a duty to leave

or avoid the situation.

Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused person

may claim that use of deadly force was justified to excuse his or her actions,

which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense

of another is an affirmative defense that an accused may assert against

a criminal charge for an assault or homicide offense. The term “affirmative

defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor, must prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense or in defense

of another. In other words, the defendant must prove that it is more

probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the

circumstances of the situation.

Whether this affirmative defense applies to the situation or whether it

will likely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specific

facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court

has explained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish

that he acted in defense of himself or another.

First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating

the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.

However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to

other unrelated situations where the victim was the aggressor. Remember,

the focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.

If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking,

or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation,

you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely

succeed in proving your affirmative defense.

Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief

that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and

that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear

in mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious

In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury

can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the

victim had, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or

bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal definition of “serious.”

In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm,

as has being attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm may also result

from being struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball

bat or a wooden club.

Important is the defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious

danger. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, it cannot be purely

speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the

judge or jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes

and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status,

knowledge, the victim’s actions, words and all other facts regarding

the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner.

Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future

harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly

force.

A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid

the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing

his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation. If

the person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left

the confrontation may be later justified in using deadly force when he

can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should always

try to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating

does not endanger yourself or others.

If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less

than deadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to

escape the other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that

you are about to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able

to use deadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger.

Under certain changes enacted in 2008, a person does not have a duty

to retreat from the residence that they lawfully occupy before using force

in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty to

retreat if the person is lawfully in that person’s vehicle or lawfully is an

occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that

person. However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is

not a license to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is

attacked, without fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably

and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent

serious bodily harm or death. If the person does not have this belief, he

should not use deadly force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life

of others in danger, you should withdraw from the confrontation if it is

safe for you to do so.

The law presumes you to have acted in self-defense or defense of

another when using deadly force if the victim had unlawfully and without

privilege entered or was in the process of entering the residence or

vehicle you occupy. The presumption does not apply if the defendant

was unlawfully in that residence or vehicle. The presumption does not

apply if the victim had a right to be in, or was a lawful resident, of the

residence or vehicle.

The presumption of self-defense is a rebuttable presumption. The

term “rebuttable presumption” means the prosecutor, and not the defendant,

carries the burden of producing evidence contrary to the facts that

the law presumes. However, a rebuttable presumption does not relieve

the defendant of the burden of proof. If the prosecutor provides sufficient

evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation

or that the use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent

death or great bodily harm then the presumption of self-defense no longer

exists.

A person may defend another only if the protected person would have

had the right to use deadly force in self-defense themselves. Under Ohio

law, a person may defend family members, friends or strangers. However,

just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any more

force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm threatened.

A defendant, who claims he used deadly force to protect another, has

to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that the person he protected

was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that

deadly force was the only way to protect the person from that danger.

Furthermore, the defendant must also show that the protected person

was not at fault for creating the situation and did not have a duty to leave

or avoid the situation.

matters into their own hands and acting as law enforcement. This is

true even if the person thinks he is performing a good deed by protecting

someone or helping law enforcement. The Ohio Supreme Court has

ruled that a person risks criminal charges if he interferes in a struggle

and protects the person who was at fault, even if he mistakenly believed

that person did not create the situation.

In other words, if you misinterpret a situation and interfere, you may

face criminal charges because your use of deadly force is not justified. If

you do not know all the facts and interfere, you will not be justified to

use force. It does not matter that you mistakenly believed another was in

danger and not at fault.

Of greater concern than risking criminal charges is the fact that you

may be putting yourself and others in danger. If you use your handgun

to interfere in a situation, and an officer arrives on the scene, the officer

will not be able to tell if you are the criminal or if you are the Good

Samaritan.

Ohio law does not encourage vigilantism. A license to carry a concealed

handgun does not deputize you as a law enforcement agent. Officers

are trained to protect members of the community, handle all types

of situations, and enforce the law. Do not allow the license to carry a

concealed handgun give you a false sense of security or empowerment.

Let law enforcement officers do their job. If you want to be a Good Samaritan,

call the police.

If the defendant fails to prove any one of the three conditions for self

defense or defense of another, he fails to justify his use of deadly force.

If the presumptions of deadly force in the home or vehicle are removed

and the defendant is unable to prove that he did not create the situation

or that the use of deadly force was reasonably necessary, he fails to

justify his use of deadly force. Under either condition, if convicted, an

individual will be sentenced accordingly.

There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death in

order to use deadly force. Protecting property alone does not allow for

the use of deadly force. A property owner may use reasonable, but never

deadly force, when he honestly believes that the force will protect his

property from harm.

If a person’s property is being attacked or threatened, he may not use

deadly force unless he reasonably believes it was the only way to protect

himself or another from being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.

Deadly force can never be used solely to protect property no matter

where the threat to the property occurs.

A license to carry a concealed handgun does not bring with it the automatic

right to use deadly force. The appropriateness of using any force

depends on the specific facts of each and every situation.