Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/themes/lenscap/template-parts/content-featured-carousel.php on line 8

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/themes/lenscap/template-parts/content-featured-carousel.php on line 9
Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/themes/lenscap/inc/jetpack.php on line 147

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/themes/lenscap/inc/jetpack.php on line 148
class="post-1651 page type-page status-publish has-post-thumbnail hentry post with-featured-image">

Self Defense

2009

Mizer v. Smith, 5th Dist. Licking No. 09-CA-00026, 2009-Ohio-6820.  Plaintiff was using his dogs to hunt coyotes on Defendant’s property without permission, and Defendant shot and killed the dogs to protect his herd of sheep on the property.  Defendant was found not negligent, because he was acting as an ordinary reasonable person, and Plaintiff was required to pay fees for trespassing.

2002

State v. Waterbeck, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 99 CA 282, 2002-Ohio-1159.  Defendant had problems with stray dogs attacking his dog.  At one point, he went out with a metal rod to defend his dog from an attacker.  The attacking dog approached him in a menacing manner.  He struck the dog unconscious with the rod and then proceeded to beat it until it was dead.  The court acknowledged that he could claim R.C. 955.28(A) as a defense for the first strike, but he was not justified in continuing to beat the dog after it was no longer a threat.

1999

State v. Hurst, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 98CA08, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 1047 (Mar. 12, 1999).  Defendant shot someone else’s dog, which he claimed was approaching him in a menacing manner.  The trial court found that he was guilty, but the appellate court did not discuss why.

1998

Penny v. Fourman, 2nd Dist. Darke No. 98-CA1465, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5301 (Nov. 6, 1998).  Plaintiff’s dog was running towards Defendant while on Defendant’s property.  The dog was not barking.  Defendant shot a warning shot, and when the dog kept running towards him, he shot the dog.  The court recognized that he was not liable because of R.C. 955.28(A).

1990

Morgan v. Elam, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA90-04-009, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5778 (Dec. 24, 1990).  Plaintiff’s dogs entered Defendant’s property while coon hunting.  Defendant claimed that one of Plaintiff’s dogs was running towards him in a threatening manner so he shot the dog.  Plaintiff claimed that the dog had trapped a coon in a tree when Defendant shot the dog.  The court found that the dog had not been threatening Defendant, and therefore, he could not use R.C. 955.28(A) as a defense.

 

Website Disclaimer