Please take a moment to read this and help bring justice for Steve Holsinger of Ohio. He was killed at his home during the (possibly illegal) repossession of a lawn mower. This happened in my hometown and I created this petition solely for the purpose of raising awareness of this event, and my goal is to convince the Scioto County local government to review the appropriate laws and act based upon them.

Disclaimer:

As a concerned citizen I feel that a few laws were broken in the repossession and that this shooting does not qualify as justifiable self defense under Ohio Concealed Carry Law. This is my personal opinion after reading thje law and comparing the events that transpired the evening of July 12, 2012, concerning Steve Holsinger and the attempted repossession of a lawn mower by the Staker Sales & Service employees who went to his home. All my information comes from local news sources who covered the story. I am not a member of the Holsinger family, nor did I personally know Mr. Holsinger. I am simply a concerned citizen who wants justice. This petition is no way meant to imply that the family of the victim has endorsed this action and I take full responsibility for the views expressed herein.

Steve Holsinger, 33, of Wheelersburg, Ohio, was shot on July 12, 2012. Tyler Staker, who had come with his father, Bob Staker, to Holsinger's home to repossess a lawn mower. Holsinger was said to owe approximately $600 on a lawn mower he had purchased from the Stakers' Portsmouth, Ohio, store recently.

Steve Holsinger, his wife and three young children were home on the evening of July 12, 2012. Bob and Tyler Staker of Staker Sales & Service arrived at the Holsinger residence between 8:30 and 9:00 P.M. The Holsinger family sat inside their home and were subjected to harassment and abuse for nearly two hours as the Stakers banged on their windows, doors and air conditioning unit. According to the WSAZ article Steve's wife stated that it was severe enough to lead her husband to believe that the Stakers were going to break the windows in their home. Steve decided to answer the door and face his harassers and protect his family. His goal was to ask the Stakers to leave. He told his wife he didn't know these men very well so he took the gun he owned for lawful home protection with him.

A very short time afterward five shots rang out.

Portsmouth 911 records show that a call was made at 10:21 P.M. (nearly two hours after the arrival of the Stakers at the Holsinger residence). The caller was Bob Staker, father of Tyler, the shooter. In the background you can hear the chilling sound of Steve Holsinger's wife Jennifer crying in shock and grief at the sight of her husband on the ground. Bob Staker screams at her, asking "What's the address here?! What's the address?!" and when the dispatcher asks again he says "I don't know what it is...", even though he had been there only a day before (Wednesday July 11) to inform Steve he was coming back to repossess the mower, and the fact he was there to do so that day (Thursday the 12th).

The most important piece of evidence revealed on the 911 tape is when Bob Staker states: "Steve Holsinger...uh, we're at his house to do a repossession and he come out and threatened us with a gun and pulled it up on my son and said 'You got three seconds to get out of here or I'm going to shoot ya' and he pointed it at my son and he shot him...". Bob Staker then clarifies that his son, Tyler, shot Steve Holsinger.

Please listen to this 911 call for yourself: http://portsmouth-dailytimes.com/view/full_story/19482401/article-Audio--Bob-Staker-s-9-1-1-call-in-Holsinger-shooting

This is legally relevant in a couple of ways. The first is obvious: of course the shooter and his father would have motive to say that Steve pointed his gun at them first. That alone warrants an investigation as there are no other witnesses that the public has been made aware of.

This is also important because under Ohio's Concealed Carry Law the section regarding self defense outlines three conditions which must be met in order to qualify as such. Here is that section:
_________________________________________________________________
Self-Defense
Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that use of deadly force was justified to excuse his actions, which would otherwise be a crime. Self-defense or the defense of another is an affirmative defense that an accused may assert against a criminal charge for an assault or homicide offense.
The term “affirmative defense” means the accused, not the prosecutor, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense or in defense of another. In other words, the defendant must prove that it is more probable than not that his use of deadly force was necessary due to the circumstances of the situation.
Whether this affirmative defense applies to the situation or whether it will likely succeed against criminal charges depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that a defendant must prove three conditions to establish that he acted in defense of himself or another.

Condition 1: Defendant Is Not At Fault
First, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator.

However, in proving the victim’s fault, a defendant cannot point to other unrelated situations in which the victim was the aggressor. Remember, the focus is on the specific facts of the situation at hand.
If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor. Most likely in this situation, you cannot legitimately claim self-defense nor would you likely succeed in proving your affirmative defense.

Condition 2: Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger
Second, the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is “serious.”
In deciding whether the bodily harm was serious, the judge or jury can consider how the victim attacked the defendant, any weapon the victim had, and how he used it against the defendant. Minor bruises or bumps from a scuffle probably do not meet the legal definition of “serious.” In court cases, rape has been determined to be serious bodily harm, as has being attacked with scissors. Serious bodily harm also may result from being struck with an object that can cause damage, such as a baseball bat or a wooden club.
The defendant’s belief that he is in immediate serious danger is important. The defendant’s belief must be reasonable, not purely speculative. In deciding if the belief was reasonable and honest, the judge or jury will envision themselves standing in the defendant’s shoes and consider his physical characteristics, emotional state, mental status, and knowledge; the victim’s actions and words; and all other facts regarding the encounter. The victim must have acted in a threatening manner. Words alone, regardless of how abusive or provoking, or threats of future harm (“I’m going to kill you tomorrow”) do not justify the use of deadly force.

Condition 3: Duty to Retreat
A defendant must show that he did not have a duty to retreat or avoid the danger. A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation.

If one person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left the confrontation may later be justified in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed. You should always try to retreat from a confrontation before using deadly force if retreating does not endanger yourself or others.
If the person can escape danger by means such as leaving or using less than deadly force, he must use those means. If you have no means to escape the other person’s attack and you reasonably, honestly believe that you are about to be killed or receive serious bodily harm, you may be able to use deadly force if that is the only way for you to escape that danger.

‘Castle Doctrine’
“Castle Doctrine” generally encompasses the idea that a person does not have a duty to retreat from the residence he lawfully occupies before using force in self-defense or defense of another. Additionally, there is no duty to retreat if a person is lawfully in his vehicle or is lawfully an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of that person.
However, being a lawful occupant of a residence or vehicle is not a license to use deadly force against an attacker. The person who is attacked, without fault of his own, may use deadly force only if he reasonably and honestly believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent serious bodily harm or death. If the person does not have this belief, he should not use deadly force. Again, if it does not put your life or the life of others in danger, you should withdraw from the confrontation if it is safe for you to do so.
The law presumes you to have acted in self-defense or defense of another when using deadly force if the victim had unlawfully and without privilege entered or was in the process of entering the residence or vehicle you occupy. The presumption does not apply if the defendant was unlawfully in that residence or vehicle. The presumption does not apply if the victim had a right to be in, or was a lawful resident of, the residence or vehicle.
The presumption of self-defense is a rebuttable presumption. The term “rebuttable presumption” means the prosecutor, and not the defendant, carries the burden of producing evidence contrary to the facts that the law presumes. However, a rebuttable presumption does not relieve the defendant of the burden of proof. If the prosecutor provides sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant created the confrontation or that the
use of deadly force was not reasonably necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, then the presumption of self-defense no longer exists.

Statutory Reference(s): ORC 2901.05 sets forth the rebuttable presumption.
ORC 2901.09(B) establishes that there is no duty to retreat before using force if a person is a lawful occupant of his vehicle or a lawful occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member.
Defense of Others
A person may defend another only if the protected person would have had the right to use deadly force in self-defense himself. Under Ohio law, a person may defend family members, friends, or strangers. However, just as if he were protecting himself, a person cannot use any more force than is reasonable and necessary to prevent the harm threatened.
A defendant who claims he used deadly force to protect another has to prove that he reasonably and honestly believed that the person he protected was in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death and that deadly force was the only way to protect the person from that danger. Furthermore, the defendant also must show that the protected person was not at fault for creating the situation and did not have a duty to leave or avoid the situation.
_________________________________________________________________

By those laws one can see that the conditions for self defense were not met by the Stakers. If anything, Mr. Holsinger would have been protected iunder Castle Doctrine if the situation were reversed.

Condition 1: The Stakers led an almost two hour campaign of terror on the Holsinger residence. They were the aggressors here. That fact alone disqualifies their self defense claim legally.

Condition 2: Even taking the claim of Holsinger pointing his gun toward the Stakers at face value, you must also consider that Steve Holsinger gave a verbal warning for the Stakers to exit his property, as admitted by Bob Staker in his own call to 911.

Condition 3: The Stakers had a very obvious duty to retreat, by the Ohio CCW. The verbal warning issued by Holsinger for them to leave is proof that they had the opportunity to leave unharmed yet chose to kill Steve Holsinger instead.
These reasons are why Scioto County Sheriff Marty V. Donini's answers are not good enough! He stated to news channel ONNTV that "you could take that as, uhh, excessive force, or you could take that as an indication 'man that guy really did fear for his life."

Or you could take it as a man willfully creating a situation in which no good outcome could occur because he broke the law every step of the way. Why is that man walking free right now?

Watch the video clip here:
http://www.onntv.com/content/stories/2012/07/18/story-wheelersburg-fatal-shooting-folo.html

We have a legal system and laws for a reason. We cannot allow our public officials to pick and choose what laws they wish to ignore. Sheriff Donini's opinion on this is NOT the criterion for whether or not an arrest should be made. This needs to have its day in court, and that cannot happen unless an arrest is made first.

Also of extreme import in this case is that the actions of the Stakers failed to meet the legal requirements regarding repossession as outlined in 1309.609 of the Ohio Revised Code, Title [13] XIII COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS - OHIO UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, Chapter 1309: SECURED TRANSACTIONS, which reads as follows:
________________________________________________________________
1309.609 Secured party's right to take possession after default - UCC 9-609.

(A) After default, a secured party:

(1) May take possession of the collateral; and

(2) Without removal, may render equipment unusable and dispose of collateral on a debtor’s premises under section 1309.610 of the Revised Code.

(B) A secured party may act under division (A) of this section:

(1) Pursuant to judicial process; or

(2) Without judicial process if it acts without breach of the peace.

(C) If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and make it available to the secured party at a place that is designated by the secured party and that is reasonably convenient to both parties.

Effective Date: 07-01-2001
________________________________________________________________

Section B, 2 clearly states that they could repossess "without breach of peace"- but a two hour long reign of terror at the Holsinger residence is clearly a breach of peace.

There are also obvious violations of the FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), which the Stakers would fall under the category of "debt collector", specifically sections 805.1 -806.2, which outline acceptable practices for debt collectors, one of which is not contacting the customer after 8 P.M. or using harassment as means to collect upon a debt.

I have tried to fully outline the events surrounding Steve Holsinger's death, and the actions of Tyler and Bob Staker to the best of my ability. My goal is to raise awareness of this injustice and advocate for a due legal process for his shooter. It seems that the laws have not been properly executed or even acknowledged, and that is unacceptable.

We have all been late on a payment at one time or another. Can you imagine being shot five times at your own home over a late payment? This was a small claims court matter at best, yet Steve Holsinger- a husband and father, is dead. Over a lawn mower. Think about that for a moment.

Please sign this petition so we can get some national attention on this matter and advocate for the victim of a violent act.

Thank you and please share!