Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are other laws on the books in California, that state that you must justify in court your use of deadly force. I can't find that right now, but I did educate myself, and it's interesting that, at that time, I found a completely different law, than what you're citing.
This is very basic stuff. If you're truly interested, and actually live in California, you should go take a firearms defense class at your local range. They will explain what the laws are and describe different scenarios so you know how the law might be applied to you in case a DA has to look over your act of self defense.
This is very basic stuff. If you're truly interested, and actually live in California, you should go take a firearms defense class at your local range. They will explain what the laws are and describe different scenarios so you know how the law might be applied to you in case a DA has to look over your act of self defense.
This is my point; the DA may look over the case, depending on the circumstances. The OP is glossing over a key aspect of the law, and is assuming that there would never be any question in the matter. That erroneous belief and over-confidence could get someone in trouble, someday.
The bolded is what the OP is failing to understand.
May I Shoot an Intruder?
If someone has invaded your home, and you fear great bodily harm or death, then yes -- the law will generally protect you if you shoot an intruder. Outside of those very specific circumstances, however, the question is a bit too complicated to provide a black and white answer, especially when you consider the different laws relating to self-defense among the states.
Self Defense
The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means that if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law. For self-defense to apply, a defendant will generally need to show the existence of an immediate threat.
In addition, any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, if a burglar were to enter your bedroom with a yellow banana as a weapon, you would probably not be justified in shooting him or her with a 20 gauge shotgun. However, if the burglar were carrying a fake pistol, and you reasonably believed it to be real, you would likely be justified in shooting the intruder.
If you act with a disproportionate response, or believe that banana to be a futuristic space weapon (an unreasonable perception), this becomes what is referred to as imperfect self-defense. This can mitigate the crime you are charged with and usually result in a lesser punishment, although it will not completely excuse the disproportionate response or result in an acquittal at trial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What if there was no immediate threat? The neighbor's kid came in a basement window, and quietly made a bee-line for the downstairs office, where the computer is. The head of household shoots him from behind, as the kid is unplugging the computer from its hook-ups. There was no immediate threat. No weapon on the kid. The neighbors want to know why their kid is dead.
Furthermore, maybe the homeowner's daughter testifies that she and the kid had had a falling out, because he was behaving inappropriately toward her, and her dad knew that. Therefore, there was reason to believe that the homeowner, claiming self-defense, had reason to have a major beef with the kid.
Even if the homeowner did get a lawyer for his court date, there's not much the lawyer could do with that. Even without the interpersonal issue between daughter and intruder, it would be a difficult case to defend.
The bolded is what the OP is failing to understand.
May I Shoot an Intruder?
If someone has invaded your home, and you fear great bodily harm or death, then yes -- the law will generally protect you if you shoot an intruder. Outside of those very specific circumstances, however, the question is a bit too complicated to provide a black and white answer, especially when you consider the different laws relating to self-defense among the states.
Self Defense
The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means that if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law. For self-defense to apply, a defendant will generally need to show the existence of an immediate threat.
In addition, any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, if a burglar were to enter your bedroom with a yellow banana as a weapon, you would probably not be justified in shooting him or her with a 20 gauge shotgun. However, if the burglar were carrying a fake pistol, and you reasonably believed it to be real, you would likely be justified in shooting the intruder.
If you act with a disproportionate response, or believe that banana to be a futuristic space weapon (an unreasonable perception), this becomes what is referred to as imperfect self-defense. This can mitigate the crime you are charged with and usually result in a lesser punishment, although it will not completely excuse the disproportionate response or result in an acquittal at trial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What if there was no immediate threat? The neighbor's kid came in a basement window, and quietly made a bee-line for the downstairs office, where the computer is. The head of household shoots him from behind, as the kid is unplugging the computer from its hook-ups. There was no immediate threat. No weapon on the kid. The neighbors want to know why their kid is dead.
Furthermore, maybe the homeowner's daughter testifies that she and the kid had had a falling out, because he was behaving inappropriately toward her, and her dad knew that. Therefore, there was reason to believe that the homeowner, claiming self-defense, had reason to have a major beef with the kid.
Even if the homeowner did get a lawyer for his court date, there's not much the lawyer could do with that. Even without the interpersonal issue between daughter and intruder, it would be a difficult case to defend.
the police and the jury should know this. shooting a suspect running away from you? that's not self defense anymore
I wonder why it is not applied to cops. they only need to tell the jury they fear for their lives and they get acquitted
the police and the jury should know this. shooting a suspect running away from you? that's not self defense anymore
I wonder why it is not applied to cops. they only need to tell the jury they fear for their lives and they get acquitted
It is absolutely applied to cops.
That's one of the things that was scrutinized in the whole Michael Brown "hands up" fiasco. When the coroner released the autopsy showing that Brown was NOT shot in the back, the entire case against Darren Wilson fell apart since witnesses had claimed Brown was shot running away.
The bolded is what the OP is failing to understand.
May I Shoot an Intruder?
If someone has invaded your home, and you fear great bodily harm or death, then yes -- the law will generally protect you if you shoot an intruder. Outside of those very specific circumstances, however, the question is a bit too complicated to provide a black and white answer, especially when you consider the different laws relating to self-defense among the states.
Self Defense
The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means that if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law. For self-defense to apply, a defendant will generally need to show the existence of an immediate threat.
In addition, any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived. For example, if a burglar were to enter your bedroom with a yellow banana as a weapon, you would probably not be justified in shooting him or her with a 20 gauge shotgun. However, if the burglar were carrying a fake pistol, and you reasonably believed it to be real, you would likely be justified in shooting the intruder.
If you act with a disproportionate response, or believe that banana to be a futuristic space weapon (an unreasonable perception), this becomes what is referred to as imperfect self-defense. This can mitigate the crime you are charged with and usually result in a lesser punishment, although it will not completely excuse the disproportionate response or result in an acquittal at trial.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What if there was no immediate threat? The neighbor's kid came in a basement window, and quietly made a bee-line for the downstairs office, where the computer is. The head of household shoots him from behind, as the kid is unplugging the computer from its hook-ups. There was no immediate threat. No weapon on the kid. The neighbors want to know why their kid is dead.
Furthermore, maybe the homeowner's daughter testifies that she and the kid had had a falling out, because he was behaving inappropriately toward her, and her dad knew that. Therefore, there was reason to believe that the homeowner, claiming self-defense, had reason to have a major beef with the kid.
Even if the homeowner did get a lawyer for his court date, there's not much the lawyer could do with that. Even without the interpersonal issue between daughter and intruder, it would be a difficult case to defend.
Penal Code 198.5 says that it is assumed you had reasonable fear for shooting a burglar.
There has to be evidence to overturn that assumption.
You don't know if a criminal who broke inside your home is about to kill or rape your family.
I've posted PC 198.5 many times here. Try reading it.
That's one of the things that was scrutinized in the whole Michael Brown "hands up" fiasco. When the coroner released the autopsy showing that Brown was NOT shot in the back, the entire case against Darren Wilson fell apart since witnesses had claimed Brown was shot running away.
Being shot outdoors outside of a residence when there is no break in is a completely different situation than home self defense.
Outdoors for a CCW you must have been in imminent danger. In a residence for PC 198.5, the act of a criminal inside your home is reason enough to believe you are in imminent danger. Duh because they broke in.
Ruth4truth, self defense in the home after a break in i's a completely different situation than Michael Brown or the Florida Zimmerman case.
If you have truth in your name, I imagine you understand now I said no misleading thing because I am talking about home self defense in my OP
Yes, I know CA's law is different from FL's. That's why I keep posting the parts of the CA law that you're ignoring. You're editing out, in your mind, the part you don't want to accept.
Here's yet another explanation of it, similar to my previous posts elucidating that key point, about "reasonable" fear, "reasonable" response. It's clear that you need to consult a lawyer, to understand any liability you may incur (depending on the circumstances) by defending yourself and/or loved ones. You're not thinking like a lawyer, cop, or some jurors; you're thinking like a guy who wants to shoot people, and wants the law to give him carte blanche to do so.
“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so, even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.” [from CALCRIM #505 & #506: Instructions to jury in homicide/self-defense cases]
California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first.You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.
You still would have to convince a jury that the use of deadly force was necessary, and not only that, but that it was necessary to actually kill the intruder, not shoot to disable the intruder and neutralize the risk. That means that if the intruder, for example, had no weapon, you could be in deep doo-doo, if you killed him. Or if the intruder were busy unplugging your electronics, posing no imminent threat of bodily harm to you, while you stood at the top of the stairs and fired at him until he slumped and gasped his last.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 02-09-2018 at 02:18 PM..
Ruth4truth, again, PC 198.5 is for a home break in situation.
You do have a right to shoot a criminal who breaks in your house.
Your examples and laws are for other situations.
Have you read PC 198.5 Ruth?
It's clear that you havent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're editing out, in your mind, the part you don't want to accept.
