TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2011 ... RONTPAGE|p

Ohio.

A Deer Park man with a concealed carry permit was arrested early today after brandishing his gun in a bar during an argument.

A drunk, gun-toting, roid-raging, racist... That's a bad formula.

Lets look at this story. I'm pretty sure there are a whole lotta things left out it being a newspaper and all. Newspapers are notoriously anti-gun and would certainly be anti-carry.

In Texas, the Threat of Force is allowed with the same rules as Use of Force. Obviously this fella felt threatened. I would think that the Ohio law would be similar. We don't have reciprocity with Ohio so perhaps not. I guess that will come out in court but the guy felt threatened. How big was the guy he pulled on?

Story says O'Reilly had been drinking. Is the Ohio law zero tolerance on this issue or do they have similar intoxication laws to Texas? Story doesn't say how much he had been drinking. Since the story doesn't specifically say O'Reilly was drunk then my guess is it wasn't much.

Ethnic Intimidation laws? Wadever (as my kids say). He popped off to get the guys attention. Perhaps O'Reilly was provoked. He already felt threatened. I know I just love being called "Cracker Box" when I'm on the 86 bus in north Houston. I'm not advocating racism of course but a threat is a threat and who knows what O'Reilly said or what was said first.

I guess testosterone is a controlled substance so he got slapped for that. I've never considered testosterone a steroid but I wouldn't know. I still make enough of my own to not worry about it.

Let's not throw this dude under the bus just yet.

Of course, he may just be the poster boy for the new KKK but since the paper didn't mention it............

TDDude wrote: I'm pretty sure there are a whole lotta things left out it being a newspaper and all.

BUT...

I believe Ohio is a "Duty to Retreat" state. He should have left the bar before the situation escalated, not only because it is the law, but it is good common sense.

I would rather be the wise man then the proud man any day of the week...

steveincowtown wrote:I believe Ohio is a "Duty to Retreat" state. He should have left the bar before the situation escalated, not only because it is the law, but it is good common sense.

I would rather be the wise man then the proud man any day of the week...

I agree that retreat is one option, but it's not always possible to retreat safely.

boba wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I believe Ohio is a "Duty to Retreat" state. He should have left the bar before the situation escalated, not only because it is the law, but it is good common sense.

I would rather be the wise man then the proud man any day of the week...

I agree that retreat is one option, but it's not always possible to retreat safely.

I hope this story gets followed up on. If it doesn't, then he probably was justified and got off.

BUT, retreating is always the best option. I know I'm supposed to cover the different levels of communicaiton (Child, Parent, and Adult) when teaching non-violent resolutions in my CHL classes. Perhaps O'Reilly missed that part.

boba wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I believe Ohio is a "Duty to Retreat" state. He should have left the bar before the situation escalated, not only because it is the law, but it is good common sense.

I would rather be the wise man then the proud man any day of the week...

I agree that retreat is one option, but it's not always possible to retreat safely.

For sure...again the article may or may not be correct but if:

"They said the man moved for cover and the bar staff called 911 while O’Reilly’s friends tried to calm him down.

His friends convinced him to leave the bar, "

It seems like he probably could have left.

It was safe to leave after the guy moved to cover. We don't know where the other guy was before O’Reilly drew. How close he was. If he was between him and the exit. If he had friends too. What sparked the incident. All factors that the paper left out because they didn't know or didn't want to say.

TDDude wrote:Story says O'Reilly had been drinking. Is the Ohio law zero tolerance on this issue or do they have similar intoxication laws to Texas? Story doesn't say how much he had been drinking. Since the story doesn't specifically say O'Reilly was drunk then my guess is it wasn't much.

Ohio Statute 2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

No alcohol at all as any consumption would be classified as under the influence. Unlike the Texas law that states intoxicated, the argument is made that with any consumption you are under the influence. It is a VERY grey area.

Ohio Statute 2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

No alcohol at all as any consumption would be classified as under the influence. Unlike the Texas law that states intoxicated, the argument is made that with any consumption you are under the influence. It is a VERY grey area.[/quote]

I'd honestly rather it be that way in Texas as well. I'd much rather have the situation under my control and be determined on whether I chose to drink or not. The way we have it, determining "intoxication" is left to the subjective judgment of other men after the fact, or by an officer who presumable encounters you after drinking and makes you. But that's just me...

KingofChaos wrote:
I'd honestly rather it be that way in Texas as well. I'd much rather have the situation under my control and be determined on whether I chose to drink or not. The way we have it, determining "intoxication" is left to the subjective judgment of other men after the fact, or by an officer who presumable encounters you after drinking and makes you. But that's just me...

So confused. Are you saying you rather have a law that saw you can't have a single drink rather than have a gray area? Why not just not drink, then the gray area becomes pretty black and white.

steveincowtown wrote:

KingofChaos wrote:
I'd honestly rather it be that way in Texas as well. I'd much rather have the situation under my control and be determined on whether I chose to drink or not. The way we have it, determining "intoxication" is left to the subjective judgment of other men after the fact, or by an officer who presumable encounters you after drinking and makes you. But that's just me...

So confused. Are you saying you rather have a law that saw you can't have a single drink rather than have a gray area? Why not just not drink, then the gray area becomes pretty black and white.

I agree.

If you only have one or two beers then get into a shooting situation it can look bad for you even if you were totally justified.

The jury won’t just look at whether you were legally drunk, they will look at whether your judgment was impaired.

I notice he was charged with “possession of a controlled substance”. I carry a small pill box of prescription pain meds in my pocket. I wonder if I could be hauled off to jail because they are a “controlled substance”?

Hmmm…I would agree that sometimes “some” facts are left out, BUT I also don’t believe that just because this guy has a CHL or whatever they call in Ohio, means that he was in the right either and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Didn’t the article say he got into a heated argument with the guy, left the bar, and returned a short time later with his glock? In his hand? This guy did the right thing at first by leaving. He should have never walked back in the bar with his gun in his hand. Yeah yeah, he claims he had it tucked in his belt, but I don’t see him disputing the fact that he left and came back in with his gun. I’m sure there were plenty of witnesses to back that up.

Jusster

VoiceofReason wrote:
I notice he was charged with “possession of a controlled substance”. I carry a small pill box of prescription pain meds in my pocket. I wonder if I could be hauled off to jail because they are a “controlled substance”?

As long as you can produce a prescription for that controlled substance, and you are not carrying while impaired by that controlled substance...you should be fine.

RJ

VoiceofReason wrote: I notice he was charged with “possession of a controlled substance”. I carry a small pill box of prescription pain meds in my pocket. I wonder if I could be hauled off to jail because they are a “controlled substance”?

My advice is that you better have your script handy in case something does happen. Perhaps your pharmacist can put it on a card or tape a label to your pill holder.

I'm sure the LEO's hear the excuse "I've got a perscription for that" quite often.