Category: Home Defense

This category focuses on strategies, tactics, and equipment designed to enhance home security and personal protection. Topics include defensive planning, safe firearm storage, alarm systems, securing entry points, use-of-force considerations, and creating a layered home defense strategy to keep you and your family safe.

Home Defense, Legal & Law, News, Self Defense Insurance

The James Rayl Shooting: Self-Defense, Controversy, and a Quiet Settlement

Mark Schneider

⚖️ Overview

On the morning of July 31, 2022, James Rayl, a 22-year-old Ohio man, was fatally shot by Mitchell Duckro after attempting to force entry into the Duckro family home. Captured on a Ring doorbell camera, the incident sparked national attention and intense debate over the use of deadly force under Ohio’s Castle Doctrine.

While no criminal charges were filed, the case didn’t end there. In 2023, Rayl’s family pursued civil action, and in July 2025, a confidential civil settlement was reached. The legal, financial, and emotional consequences offer a powerful case study in modern self-defense law—and what happens when you’re left to face a lawsuit after pulling the trigger.

🏠 What Happened: The Shooting of James Rayl

Rayl, who had previously dated Mitchell Duckro’s daughter, Allyson Duckro, appeared unannounced at the family’s front door. After ringing the doorbell and waiting briefly, he began kicking the door in.

Inside, Mitchell Duckro warned him repeatedly. When the door began to give way, he fired three shots through the wooden door, striking Rayl in the shoulder and chest. Rayl stumbled away and collapsed on the front porch. He was later pronounced dead at the scene.

Duckro was never charged. A Shelby County grand jury declined to indict him, citing Ohio’s Castle Doctrine, which gives homeowners broad authority to use deadly force against intruders. Here is a link to see the Ring footage.

🧑‍⚖️ The Civil Lawsuit: Conatser v. Duckro

Despite the lack of criminal charges, Rayl’s mother, Nancy Conatser, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in July 2023. The civil complaint named Mitchell, Allyson, and Stacey Duckro as defendants and alleged:

  • That Duckro used excessive force
  • That Allyson may have misled or emotionally manipulated James, causing him to show up
  • That the shooting was unreasonable, especially since the door hadn’t fully opened

The case became a national talking point about the difference between criminal immunity and civil liability in self-defense cases.

⚖️ Civil vs. Criminal: Two Very Different Outcomes

It’s important to understand that criminal court and civil court operate under different standards:

  • In criminal court, prosecutors must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”
  • In civil court, the standard is “preponderance of the evidence”—meaning more likely than not

This means a person can be legally justified in a shooting and still be found liable in civil court. The Rayl case is a textbook example of how legal justification does not guarantee financial protection.

✅ Confidential Settlement Reached in July 2025

In July 2025, a confidential civil settlement was reached through an Agreement to Dismiss All claims (ADA). While the terms remain undisclosed, family members of James Rayl, including his sister Jess Colbert, confirmed the resolution in the Facebook group Justice for James Rayl. In a video post, Colbert stated that the family had reached a settlement with the Duckros and believed justice had been served through civil court.

This avoided a public jury trial and formally closed the civil case.

💵 How Much Did the Duckro Settlement Likely Cost?

While the exact amount is confidential, we can estimate the likely financial impact by analyzing similar wrongful death cases and legal costs.

Cost ComponentEstimated Range
Settlement Amount$100,000 – $1.5 million
Legal Fees$50,000 – $150,000
Confidentiality Premium$100,000 – $300,000
🟰 Total Likely Cost$250,000 – $2 million+

One of the more controversial elements of this case is that Duckro fired through a closed door.

Even in Castle Doctrine states, this kind of action can raise questions:

  • Was the door truly about to give way?
  • Did the homeowner have visual confirmation of the threat?
  • Could he have waited another second to assess intent?

In civil court, plaintiffs often argue that firing without seeing the person directly is reckless, especially if the door never fully opened. These arguments are emotionally charged and can sway jurors—even when the law is technically on the shooter’s side.

💬 Public Opinion: Deeply Divided

The James Rayl shooting generated intense and polarized reactions online and in the media:

  • Some saw Duckro as a law-abiding father who protected his daughter from a potential violent intruder.
  • Others viewed him as a man who panicked and executed an unarmed young man through a wooden door without giving him a chance to leave.

Even among gun owners and self-defense advocates, opinions varied dramatically. That division underscores how complex and emotionally loaded these cases can be—even when the law is clear.

🌐 Social Media and the Fight for Justice

Much of the public pressure to pursue justice came from social media—particularly the Facebook group Justice for James Rayl.

Founded by friends and family members, the group shared updates, organized public awareness campaigns, and highlighted perceived flaws in the investigation. It also served as a central hub for supporters nationwide who wanted to see the case reopened or pursued civilly.

Without this grassroots effort, it’s possible the civil case might have never happened—or gained the momentum it did.

🗣 Author’s Perspective

As a firearms instructor and use-of-force expert, here’s my honest opinion:

I believe the Duckros were in the right. Rayl had no business trying to kick in the front door. Once someone begins to force entry into your home, all bets are off—you have the legal and moral right to protect your family.

That said, I also believe James Rayl made a tragic, dumb, and youthful mistake. He didn’t deserve to die, but unfortunately, this was a situation where his actions triggered a fatal response. It’s heartbreaking.

We’ll never know what his true intent was, but Duckro couldn’t afford to wait to find out. For all he knew, Rayl could’ve been armed. He could’ve killed the family, raped Allyson, or set the home on fire. These things happen. Watch the news.

When it comes to home defense, you don’t get to hit rewind. I believe Mitchell Duckro acted lawfully, and responsibly, under unimaginable stress. It was a justified but devastating situation.

🛡 Could Self-Defense Insurance Have Saved the Duckros Financially?

It’s unknown whether Mitchell Duckro had self-defense insurance. But if he didn’t, the financial damage from this case could have been catastrophic:

  • Equity in the home
  • Retirement funds
  • Garnished wages
  • Bankruptcy

That’s why self-defense insurance exists.

✅ A Plus for Self-Defense Insurance

With a proper self-defense policy, Duckro’s legal fees and even a seven-figure settlement could have been entirely covered. These policies typically include:

  • Civil and criminal attorney coverage
  • Judgment & settlement payouts
  • Bail bond assistance
  • Firearm replacement
  • Expert witness costs

🔎 Compare Self-Defense Insurance Providers

We strongly recommend every CCW holder or lawful gun owner consider coverage from:

  • US Lawshield
  • CCW Safe
  • Firearms Legal Protection
  • Right To Bear

👉 Compare Self-Defense Insurance Plans Here

⚖️ Hire a Firearms & Use-of-Force Expert

Hire Mark Schneider as your expert witness for self-defense, shooting, or use-of-force cases—civil or criminal. Certified firearms instructor with real-world training and courtroom experience.

📣 Final Thoughts

The James Rayl case reminds us that even a legally justified shooting doesn’t end at the muzzle flash. The financial, emotional, and legal aftermath can change your life forever.

Whether you’re defending your home, your life, or your loved ones—be trained, be informed, and be protected.

Guide, Home Defense, Legal & Law

Why You Should Never Drag a Body Inside After a Self-Defense Shooting

Mark Schneider

Reality: That’s called tampering with a crime scene — and it will land you in prison.

The Holiday Table Myth

It’s your favorite holiday. You’re sitting around the dinner table — Christmas, the 4th of July, Thanksgiving — and the conversation turns to firearms. Uncle Bill starts going off, and before long, you’re knee-deep in a self-defense scenario:

“Let’s say it’s the middle of the night. A masked intruder kicks in your front door. He’s armed, he threatens you, and you shoot him twice. He stumbles out the door and drops dead on your porch. If that happens,” Uncle Bill says, “make sure you drag him back inside — otherwise it’s murder.”

Let’s make this crystal clear:
Should you do what Uncle Bill says? Absolutely not.

Why This Is a Myth

This piece of “advice” has been floating around gun shops, backyards, and online forums for decades. The thinking goes like this: if the threat dies outside your home, the law won’t protect you — but if the body’s inside, then you’re automatically justified under the Castle Doctrine.

The problem? That’s not how the law works — and trying to “fix” the scene will absolutely work against you.

What Happens If You Drag the Body Inside

If you touch that body — move it, drag it, reposition it — you’ve just interfered with a crime scene. That’s a felony in every state. You’ve also:

  • Destroyed key evidence that could prove your innocence.
  • Made it look like you had something to hide.
  • Potentially opened yourself up to charges of tampering, obstruction, or even murder.

You don’t look like a law-abiding gun owner anymore — you look like someone trying to stage a killing. And once that doubt is raised, prosecutors will dig deeper and may pursue charges that would’ve never been filed otherwise.

The Castle Doctrine Doesn’t Give You a Free Pass

Yes, most states have some version of the Castle Doctrine. It generally says you can defend yourself in your own home without a duty to retreat, especially against a forcible or unlawful entry.

But that protection doesn’t extend to:

  • Moving evidence
  • Dragging bodies
  • Lying to the police
  • Making it look like the shooting happened somewhere it didn’t

The Castle Doctrine justifies your actions at the time of the threat, not whatever you decide to do afterward.

What Should You Do Instead?

Here’s what responsible armed citizens should do if forced to defend themselves:

  1. Stop shooting once the threat stops. If the attacker flees, let them go.
  2. Call 911 immediately. Give a basic, truthful statement like, “Someone broke into my home and I had to defend myself.”
    Don’t volunteer unnecessary details.
    👉 For a full guide on what to say during the 911 call, read this:
    Legal Aftermath: What to Say on the 911 Call After a Self-Defense Shooting
  3. Do not touch the body, the weapon, or anything else. Leave the scene exactly as it is.
  4. Secure your firearm if safe to do so, but don’t hide or tamper with it.
  5. Comply with law enforcement. Stay calm. Say you want to cooperate and will give a full statement with your attorney present.

Let the Evidence Work for You

If the shooting was justified, the physical evidence — shell casings, blood trail, entry points, surveillance footage, 911 audio — will tell the story. That’s what your defense attorney will rely on. The second you try to stage a scene or make it “look better,” you’ve turned a clean case into a suspicious one.

Final Thoughts

Dragging a dead intruder back into your house doesn’t make you look smart. It makes you look guilty.
And it’s one of the fastest ways to go from a justified self-defense shooting to a prison sentence.

So the next time Uncle Bill brings up that old myth, feel free to set him straight — and remind everyone:

You’re not just defending your life. You’re defending your freedom. Don’t screw it up after the fact.

Take the Next Step

✅ Sign Up for a Concealed Carry Class in Colorado
Get the training you need to handle real-world scenarios legally and responsibly.

🛡️ Compare Self-Defense Insurance Plans
Protect yourself legally before, during, and after a defensive encounter. We’ve done the research — see which plan fits your needs.

🛍️ Shop Firearms Gear, Training Tools, and Duty Equipment
Explore our curated gear collection — from body armor to holsters and more.

⚖️ Need an Expert Witness?
Mark Schneider is available for consultation and expert witness testimony in self-defense and use-of-force cases.
📩 Contact us here

Home Defense, Legal & Law

Your Rights Under Colorado’s ‘Make My Day’ Law

Mark Schneider

We’ve all heard the phrase “make my day,” but in Colorado, it’s more than just a movie quote—it’s part of a real law that gives homeowners and occupants powerful legal protections when it comes to defending themselves inside their own homes.

Whether you’re a concealed carry permit holder or a homeowner looking to understand your rights, Colorado’s “Make My Day” law—found in Colorado Revised Statute § 18-1-704.5—is one of the most important self-defense laws in the state.

🔹 What Is the “Make My Day” Law?

Colorado’s “Make My Day” law gives you the legal right to use deadly force against an intruder in your home—without any duty to retreat—if you reasonably believe they’ve committed a crime and may use physical force against you or another occupant.

You don’t have to wait to see a weapon. You don’t have to warn them. You don’t even have to be 100% sure of their intentions. If someone unlawfully enters your home and you reasonably believe they pose a threat, you’re legally justified in using deadly force.

🔹 The Law in Plain English (C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5)

Here’s what the law says:

A person is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person when:

  • The other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling;
  • The occupant has a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed or intends to commit a crime (other than the entry); and
  • The occupant reasonably believes the intruder might use physical force, no matter how slight.

If all those conditions are met, you are immune from criminal prosecution and civil liability.

🔹 Key Points You Need to Know

  • It only applies inside your home. This law does not apply in your front yard, garage (unless it’s attached), driveway, or place of business.
  • You must be a lawful occupant. It doesn’t just apply to homeowners—renters and invited guests are protected too.
  • There must be unlawful entry. If someone walks through your open door and you invited them in earlier, this law probably doesn’t apply.

🔹 Real-World Scenario

Let’s say it’s 2 a.m. and you hear someone break a window and climb into your living room. You grab your firearm, confront the intruder, and shoot them. Under Colorado’s Make My Day law, if your belief that they posed a threat was reasonable, you’re protected—even if it turns out later they were unarmed.

You don’t have to retreat. You don’t have to wait to be attacked. You don’t even have to give a warning. This law is designed to protect your right to defend your home and your loved ones.

🔹 Important Caveats

  1. Don’t assume immunity automatically applies. Prosecutors will still review the case. If the person was invited in, lived there, or didn’t enter unlawfully, you may not be covered.
  2. Not the same as “stand your ground.” This law only applies inside the home. Colorado has no official “stand your ground” statute for public spaces—but court rulings like People v. Garcia function that way.
  3. Use good judgment. Just because the law protects you doesn’t mean deadly force is always the best—or only—option.

🔚 Conclusion

Colorado’s “Make My Day” law gives you strong legal protection if you’re forced to defend yourself from an intruder inside your home. But like any self-defense law, it comes with conditions.

Know your rights. Know your limits. And always use deadly force as a last resort, even when the law says you’re allowed to use it.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance, please consult a licensed Colorado attorney.