Penal Code 198.5 - Right to Shoot an Intruder in Your Home (2013, violent crime)

[Erratikmind]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Uh, that's why one of the four cardinal rules of deploying a firearm is "know your target and what's beyond it". People who are actually educated in firearms usage live by that rule. They just don't come out guns blazing in the dark. That's ridiculous.

Absolutely and without question.

On a side note, I would suggest a self defense insurance policy.

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by Crashj007

Looks like you have been reading that NRA literature again, gunny.

This further affirms my suspicion that Chicano is a closet Republican

[MissRahel]

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT RIGHT!!!!

I am 100% in favor of this as long as FORENSICS can prove that it was an intruder.

[wilshire]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That's not a reasonable assumption. Some break-ins are about burglary, not intended homicide. Sometimes the bad guys just want to make off with the computer, TV, and the silver flatware, and abscond.

At the moment you confront a criminal who broke into your home, you don't know if that criminal is going to rape you, kill you, rob you, or assault your family. And you have miliseconds to defend yourself.

That's why we have PC 198.5, California's Castle Doctrine. It assumes we have a reasonable cause to be scared for our family's lives when there is a criminal intruder inside your home.

[wilshire]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

Unfortunately, a liberal jury would probably see otherwise. Harm to them wouldn't include financial harm.

Nope. It would never go to court as long because the burden of proof is on the dead criminal.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs...3400/3477.html

The law presumes that the defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of (his/her)family or household,] if:1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering)the defendant’s home;2. The defendant knew [or reasonably believed] that an intruderunlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) thedefendant’s home;3. The intruder was not a member of the defendant’s household orfamily;AND4. The defendant used force intended to or likely to cause death orgreat bodily injury to the intruder inside the home

[wilshire]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

"To clairvoy". I like that! All I'm saying is that it's not a reasonable assumption that a break-in = assault or threat of assault. That would not stand up in court in states that require there to be an assault or a fear-for-one's-life situation to justify the use of deadly force. One would have to prove in court that there was good reason to believe one's life was in danger. That wouldn't be provable, if the intruder were discovered by police to be unarmed, and, say, found on the threshold of the dining room, vs. heading toward the bedrooms.

What matters is that you are in fear for your safety when there is a criminal who breaks inside your home.

You don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because if you do, you might be dead.

Penal Code 198.5 in California assumes that you are in fact, fearful of not only your own life, but that of your entire family as well. This protection is similar to that of Texas as well. You don't know if that criminal is a burglar or a rapist or about to do a home invasion. It's your house and the criminal doesn't have a right to break in and put your family in harms way.

Hope you educate yourself and understand that the right to live safe in a home is not to be messed with in California.

[wilshire]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

That was Florida. This is the CA forum. Furthermore, the kid's killer was, indeed, dragged into court.

She was probably sued by the criminal's parents.

But definitely not criminal court.

Either way, Penal Code 198.5, California's Castle Doctrine provides decent rights for law abiding Californians. If you look at burglary rates in California, they have skyrocketed since Prop 47, Prop 57, AB 109, especially in urban areas.

This is why we need PC 198.5. The right to protect your family supercedes a criminal's right to commit more crime.

[wilshire]

Ruth4Truth

Every time you try to discredit our rights, I will post up facts that will spread facts to tens of thousands of Californians who will become more and more aware of their rights outlined right here. Ruth4Truth, you may not have kids, but if there is a criminal in my house that breaks in, I will protect my family 100%. As will everyone who wants to protect their family as well. Here is what jurors are told about home self defense cases. As you can see, it outlines perfectly our rights in Penal Code 198.5.

The law presumes that the defendant reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself)[, or to a member of (his/her)family or household,] if:

1. An intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering)the defendant’s home;
2. The defendant knew [or reasonably believed] that an intruder unlawfully and forcibly (entered/ [or] was entering) the defendant’s home;
3. The intruder was not a member of the defendant’s household or family;
4. The defendant used force intended to or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to the intruder inside the home

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs...3400/3477.html

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by wilshire

At the moment you confront a criminal who broke into your home, you don't know if that criminal is going to rape you, kill you, rob you, or assault your family. And you have miliseconds to defend yourself.

That's why we have PC 198.5, California's Castle Doctrine. It assumes we have a reasonable cause to be scared for our family's lives when there is a criminal intruder inside your home.

California still requires you to justify the use of deadly force in court, though. If the cops examine the dead meat in your living room, and find there was no gun, not even a knife, on the body, it might not go over well for you. Was the intruder shot in the back? That, also, wouldn't be in your favor. A castle doctrine (depending on the state, and how the laws are written) is not license to shoot at will. It's not necessarily a free pass.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by wilshire

What matters is that you are in fear for your safety when there is a criminal who breaks inside your home.

You don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Because if you do, you might be dead.

Penal Code 198.5 in California assumes that you are in fact, fearful of not only your own life, but that of your entire family as well. This protection is similar to that of Texas as well. You don't know if that criminal is a burglar or a rapist or about to do a home invasion. It's your house and the criminal doesn't have a right to break in and put your family in harms way.

Hope you educate yourself and understand that the right to live safe in a home is not to be messed with in California.

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.

The loophole I see is this: There was a reasonable fear of death or injury to you, a family member or another member of the household; You would have to demonstrate in court that the fear you claim was "reasonable". Again--did you shoot the intruder in the back, as he was walking from the point of entry into, say, the dining room, to get the silverware? A jury wouldn't acquit you, since the intruder posed no danger to you, at that moment. Was he walking away from where you stood, AND was later discovered by police to be carrying no weapon? You could be toast, legally speaking.

You're excising the parts of the law you don't want to know, and don't want others to know, in your quote selections.

California’s “Castle Doctrine” (PC Section 198.5)
Although California does not specifically have a “stand-your-ground” law, the Castle Doctrine is similar. Under Penal Code Section 198.5, you are allowed to use deadly force within your own home if you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril or great bodily injury.”
If someone forces his or her way into your home unlawfully, a few things must occur to justify using deadly force:
You knew or had reason to believe the person entered your home unlawfully;
The intruder was acting unlawfully (not a police officer who was doing their job);
There was a reasonable fear of death or injury to you, a family member or another member of the household; and
You or the occupants of your home did not provoke the intruder in any way

https://www.wklaw.com/california-self-defense-laws/

If law firms address this issue, it means you'd need a lawyer if you shot someone in your home. You are not home free, just because you read the law narrowly, in your favor. You'll still need to justify your use of deadly force in court, and you may need an expert to defend you, depending on the circumstances of the case.