To the Editor: ‘Duty to retreat’ had no bearing on conviction

The following letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade was published in response to an editorial entitled "Tragic Lesson - A case just decided in Ohio shows why lawmakers should reject ‘stand-your-ground’ laws," in which the Blade editorial board claimed that an area murder "could have been legally justified under a stand-your-ground law."

‘Duty to retreat’ had no bearing on conviction

You are incorrect in your Nov. 18 editorial “Tragic lesson” that removing the “duty to retreat” provision from Ohio self-defense law would in any way have changed the outcome of the Romauldo Cordoba case.

Under Ohio law, even had there been no duty to retreat, and to establish his claims of self-defense, Cordoba still would have had to prove that he was not at fault in creating, prolonging, or escalating the situation that gave rise to the perceived need to employ deadly force, and that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of stopping the attack was with the use of deadly force.

Cordoba would have been convicted whether or not there was a duty to retreat provision in Ohio law, because he failed to meet the first two prongs of the self-defense test. You claim that without duty to retreat, Cordoba would be a free man, and this just isn’t the case.

CHAD BAUS

Secretary, Buckeye Firearms Association, Archbold