WARREN — A recent shooting incident at a fast-food restaurant near downtown Warren has ignited a debate over whether the act was a legitimate case of self-defense.

The incident, captured on video, could be examined under Ohio’s self-defense laws, which were altered in 2019 and 2021. These changes may play a pivotal role in the legal proceedings.

Video footage of the May 24 incident, which occurred in the parking lot of Rally’s on South Street, provided by a witness at the scene, shows a confrontation as one woman approaches a white SUV with another woman inside it. The two women get into a physical altercation as the armed woman is pushed into a set of bushes in front of the eatery. As the armed woman is on the ground, the shooting victim approaches her. The armed woman then fires at least one shot, seemingly into the other woman’s abdomen.

The incident has garnered significant public attention sparking online debate on whether the shooting was done in self-defense.

Craig surrendered to police Tuesday charged with one count of second-degree felonious assault. She appeared for an arraignment in Warren Municipal Court where a bond was set at $50,000, which she later posted.

Mike Gentithes, associate dean of Academic Affairs at the University of Akron School of Law, said many factors play into determining if a threat is imminent.

“That might include aggressive actions or attacks, or physical altercations with the eventual victim. Now, another element of self-defense is that the person claiming self-defense was not the aggressor, essentially, they didn’t initiate or instigate the incident,” Gentithes said. All of those elements he said look at the totality of the circumstances around the incident. Another component is discussing the importance of proportionality in self-defense claims.

“Proportionality is built into that imminent danger of something very serious of death, or great bodily harm, you need that imminent danger of either death or great bodily harm if the defendant themselves is going to use deadly force in self-defense,” he said.

The law doesn’t allow one to use force indiscriminately but instead permits one to do so if the immediate threat calls for a greater use of force to protect oneself from harm.

Gentithes explained that perceiving an imminent threat from someone who is verbally assaulting would not justify using deadly force. The nuances of bodily harm might leave leeway for fear of being beaten up or involved in a physical altercation, but this relies on the immediacy and severity of the threat, which is case-specific, Gentithes said.

With the duty to retreat eliminated under Ohio’s stand-your-ground law, a person is no longer required to retreat before using force in self-defense. Without the duty to retreat, he said, “So long as the person claiming self-defense is in a place, they have a legal right to be and if they’re not trespassing on someone else’s property they no longer have that duty to retreat.”

He said both parties will review the details of the case in making their argument for the claim that the opposing party was the initial aggressor.

“Evidence that the eventual victim physically assaulted or contacted the shooter prior to the shooting would be important to establishing self-defense,” he said.

There are five key elements jurors must consider when evaluating a self-defense claim:

• Whether the defendant was responsible for creating the situation that led to the injury;

• If the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm;

• Whether the defendant honestly believed, even if mistakenly, that they were in immediate danger of death or severe injury;

• If the defendant violated a duty to retreat to avoid danger;

• Whether the force used by the defendant was unreasonable.

In cases where a self-defense claim is raised and evidence is presented, a judge decides whether to instruct the jury on self-defense law. After closing arguments, the judge reads these instructions, guiding jurors in their deliberations. They must first understand how the law applies, particularly that the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s use of deadly force was not in self-defense.