TexasCHLforum.com

David Hillis, an Akron, Ohio homeowner who fatally shot a home invader has been charged with voluntary manslaughter. By some accounts, the burglars (Glover and Tart) forced their way into Hillis’ home and threatened Hillis at gunpoint. Hillis responded and shot at the burglars as they were running away. Other accounts say Hillis chased the burglars.

The key question will likely hinge on whether he actually chased after the burglars and shot or whether when he fired at the burglars and they turned to flee he shot one in the back.

To me this would hing on whether they were in his house when he shot.

Since they had guns, they were a deadly threat inside his house, whether their back was turned or not. Had they turned away to seek better cover to then begin shooting at our homeowner?

It seems that this would present a lot of difficulty for a homeowner with an armed intruder in your house, having to weigh all sorts of legal issues, when in a gun fight.

Once they were running away outside the house, firing would be problematic, except in Texas at night, if they had stolen something. You also have the "know your target problem" of someone running away outside after you lost sight of them as they exited. The shadowy figures running away may not have been the intruders in your house.

If they were inside his house when he fired, this would be more about living in Akron, Ohio.

It looks like OH has a pretty legit Castle Doctrine.

They claim he shot them as they were "running away." I tend to think they were taking cover to return fire.

Q: If someone enters my home illegally, and I shoot her in self-defense, does S.B. 184 protect me from being arrested for protecting myself and my family?
A: Generally, yes. Ohio’s “castle laws” presume you have acted in self defense or in defense of another when using deadly force against someone who has unlawfully entered your residence or vehicle. If you were to be charged, the prosecution would have to prove that the intruder did not enter your house or vehicle with the intent of causing harm.

S.B. 184 also bars criminal offenders from recovering damages for injuries they receive from their victims while engaged in criminal conduct. You can now defend yourself in your home without worrying that your attacker will be able to recover for injuries incurred during the intrusion.

News accounts I've read stated he followed them outside, in other words, he left the house, and shot him in the back.

There has been quite a discussion of this case on the Ohioans For Concealed Carry forum (thread here).

A county prosecutor in a different county had these comments:

Werz wrote:

Bama.45 wrote:If they are running and have a gun they are still a threat.

While that may be your opinion, it may not be an opinion shared by jurors. Shooting someone with a gun - in the back - is still shooting someone in the back. Even by Old West movie rules, that's not a good shoot.

Werz wrote:Well, this thread is on its third page, and nobody has mentioned the 600-pound gorilla ...

I don't know the underlying facts of this case, and I don't really feel motivated to learn them. But let's face facts. In my experience, most home invasions involving two or more armed intruders are about one thing. Most everyone here knows what that is. Under those circumstances, the homeowner is not usually cut a lot of slack. It's kind of like the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.

Obviously, he is talking about drugs in the home.