CHL-holder forced to use firearm to defend life in Akron mall attack

WEWS (ABC Cleveland) is reporting that an Ohio CHL-holder was forced to defend his life and that of a companion when they were attacked at an Akron shopping mall.

From the article:

A concealed carry weapons permit holder told police that he drew his pistol while he and a woman were being attacked by two men at the Summit Mall, and he said his weapon fired while he was being tackled. The bullet hit the ceiling, and the attackers fled, according to Fairlawn police.

Officers responded to the scene around 2:35 p.m. after numerous calls about a fight and a singular shot fired at the mall. The man and woman told police they were approached from behind by two men who started a fight.

According to the article, the man and the woman were assessed by the Fairlawn Fire Department and released.

Separate coverage from the Akron Beacon-Journal provides more detail:

Police said the gun holder told them he was approached by two men from behind who instigated a fight. The man drew his pistol and was tackled by one of the two males, with one shot fired from the gun as the man was being tackled. The two males then ran off, police said.

"Both the male and female are cooperating with the investigation and the firearm was seized as evidence. The Fairlawn Police Department Detective Bureau will conduct a full investigation into the matter and determine if charges are warranted," the police department said in a news release.

Thanks to passage of Senate Bill 175 in late 2020, Ohio's self-defense law no longer contains language that once required a victim to attempt "escape" before using lethal force to defend themselves. In practice, the old law required that a victim would have to prove they could not escape if on trial for shooting someone in self-defense. That is no longer the case.

Just as Castle Doctrine gives victims the benefit of the doubt when they claim self-defense in their home, removing the duty to retreat gives victims the benefit of the doubt when they claim self-defense in all other locations. The authorities must now prove that a person is guilty of a crime, and can't immediately treat someone who was forced to defend themselves like a murderer if they can't prove retreat was impossible.

To summarize, if you can legally be in a place, you have no duty to retreat before using lethal force in self-defense. SB 175 put the law more on the side of victims of violent crime and less on the side of those committing the violence.

It is important to note that this does not change the standard for when use of lethal force is legally justified.

Using lethal force in self-defense is legally justifiable if you have an honest and reasonable fear that you are in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

While this language may not appear in formal law, it provides a near universal standard. You must fear death or great bodily harm. This fear must not only be honest, it must also be considered reasonable by others in your community. The danger must be immediate, meaning it's happening right now.

The fact that the law does not impose an arbitrary duty to retreat does not in any way change this.

Buckeye Firearms Association will continue to monitor this case and report as warranted.

Chad D. Baus served as Buckeye Firearms Association Secretary from 2013-2019, and continues to serve on the Board of Directors. He is co-founder of BFA-PAC, and served as its Vice Chairman for 15 years. He is the editor of BuckeyeFirearms.org, which received the Outdoor Writers of Ohio 2013 Supporting Member Award for Best Website, and is also an NRA-certified firearms instructor.