Ohio legislature overturns Kasich veto on bill broadening gun owners' rights

[Wingnut]

Poor John.  He just can't deliver like his old man.

The Ohio legislature on Thursday overturned outgoing Gov. John Kasich's (R) veto on a bill broadening gun owners' rights.

The Senate voted 21-11 in favor of striking down Kasich's veto on the bill, following a House override earlier on Thursday, The Associated Press reported.

Ohio House Bill 228 would shift the burden of proof to prosecutors to show that defendants used force in self-defense.

In his veto statement earlier this month, Kasich said he believes the defendant should have to prove self-defense.

"This has never been the law in Ohio; the defendant has always had the burden of proving self-defense," Kasich wrote in the message. "This provision of the bill is strongly opposed by the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association."

The governor said he vetoed the bill based on provisions that would "benefit from additional considerations," citing the burden of proof section and limitations the bill sets on cities and counties that hope to to ...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/423008-ohio-legislature-overturns-kasich-veto-on-bill-broadening-gun-owners

[Free Vulcan]

Just highlights what an insufferable pompous asshat Kasich is. Shift the burden of proof to the prosecutor? OMG the horror!

[Oceander]

Just highlights what an insufferable pompous asshat Kasich is. Shift the burden of proof to the prosecutor? OMG the horror!

Actually, no, it doesn’t. 

Ohio is, of course, free within reason to change the rules for itself, but traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, often by a preponderance.  One of the rationales for this was that typically, it was the defendant in a criminal case who possessed the evidence necessary to prove self-defense, so it was reasonable to put the burden of proof on the defendant.

Shifting the burden of proof, particularly when coupled with the right against self-incrimination, could create a lot of mischief because now, all defendants are effectively presumed to have acted in self-defense, and the prosecution will be unable to compel the testimony of the one individual who possesses evidence bearing on that issue: the defendant him or her self.

We’ll just have to see how this plays out in court in real cases. 

[truth_seeker]

Minds of. Kasich and our resident #nevertrump attorney in one thread.

[rustynail]

Now do the 'heartbeat' bill

[Oceander]

Minds of. Kasich and our resident #nevertrump attorney in one thread.

Welcome to the thread, brown eyes.

[Wingnut]

Welcome to the thread, brown eyes.

You didn't just imply T-S was full of shit up to his eyes now did you?

[Free Vulcan]

Actually, no, it doesn’t. 

Ohio is, of course, free within reason to change the rules for itself, but traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, often by a preponderance.  One of the rationales for this was that typically, it was the defendant in a criminal case who possessed the evidence necessary to prove self-defense, so it was reasonable to put the burden of proof on the defendant.

Shifting the burden of proof, particularly when coupled with the right against self-incrimination, could create a lot of mischief because now, all defendants are effectively presumed to have acted in self-defense, and the prosecution will be unable to compel the testimony of the one individual who possesses evidence bearing on that issue: the defendant him or her self.

We’ll just have to see how this plays out in court in real cases.

How would that be different than any other prosecution?

[Oceander]

How would that be different than any other prosecution?

Really?  Do you need the testimony of the defendant to determine if the bullet that went through the victims skull killed him?  Do you need the defendants testimony to prove that said bullet was fired from the gun found in the defendants possession at the time of his arrest?

Self-defense usually depends on the defendants state of mind, which typically can only be demonstrated by the defendant himself. 

It’s very different.  And that’s why historically self-defense has been an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove. 

Don’t get me wrong; Ohio is free to make the change.  But let’s not pretend that this isn’t a radical departure from ancient common law and statute law practice.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Actually, no, it doesn’t. 

Ohio is, of course, free within reason to change the rules for itself, but traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove, often by a preponderance.  One of the rationales for this was that typically, it was the defendant in a criminal case who possessed the evidence necessary to prove self-defense, so it was reasonable to put the burden of proof on the defendant.

Shifting the burden of proof, particularly when coupled with the right against self-incrimination, could create a lot of mischief because now, all defendants are effectively presumed to have acted in self-defense, and the prosecution will be unable to compel the testimony of the one individual who possesses evidence bearing on that issue: the defendant him or her self.

We’ll just have to see how this plays out in court in real cases.

so where does 'stand your ground' defense play into all this?