California Laws question?


PDA






Sloth
August 6, 2004, 02:42 AM
Alright a friend and I are reading the same thing and get two completely different interpretations of it.

This is on page 37-38 of the Handgun Safety Certicate study guild booklet.


"The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when to resist the attempt to commit a forcible or life threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that ... (C) the person acted under the belief that such a force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life threatening crime. Murder, mayham, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes"

Here's his interpretation "You may shoot someone in California is they are attempting to rob you."

And I was thinking "You can only shot someone to prevent an imminent injury"

Who is right?

(actually, I know I'm right, but need help showing him this)

Thankyou.

If you enjoyed reading about "California Laws question?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cosmos7
August 6, 2004, 02:48 AM
It's only during the commission of a felony that it applies.

deej
August 6, 2004, 02:52 AM
(this should probably be in L&P, but...)



http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/robbery.html

Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender's use of physical force or fear against a victim. Where a deadly weapon such as a gun is used or the victim suffers injury, the robbery may be charged as "armed" or "aggravated." Unlike burglary, the crime of robbery almost always requires the presence of a victim who suffers actual injury, or is threatened with harm.



And from the CA penal code...



link to code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=211-215)

211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

212. The fear mentioned in Section 211 may be either:
1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the
person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family;
or,
2. The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or
property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of
the robbery.



In other words...what's the problem?

Jim March
August 6, 2004, 02:53 AM
You're both right.

The BASIC standard is "you can shoot to prevent death or great bodily injury".

The "addendum" is that California law recognizes that robbers often cause exactly such death or great bodily injury.

Therefore, the robbery in progress is in and of itself EVIDENCE that the requirement for deadly force has been met.

When the robbery is OVER (goblin clearly leaving), such evidence evaporates.

Sloth
August 6, 2004, 02:57 AM
So if some one is in your driveway stealing your car you can get your rifle and shot him because "The fear of an unlawful injury to the property of the
person robbed"?

deej
August 6, 2004, 03:02 AM
Unless you're THERE, in the driveway with him, it's not robbery.

If he's stealing your car from the driveway, and you're in the living room, it's probably theft.

IANAL...

Robbery = taking property from someone by unlawful force or threat of force

Burglary = entering someone's property with unlawful intent

Theft = taking someone's property without their permission

Jim March
August 6, 2004, 08:40 AM
Sloth: you're describing Grand Theft Auto, not robbery.

CARJACKING is a form of Robbery.

redhead
August 6, 2004, 10:10 AM
'Course, for most of us in California, a CCW is unlikely, so in the case of a carjacking, the option of shooting is unavailable to us. Now, if I'm in my home, and some dirtbag has broken in and is stealing my jewelry while I'm at home, it looks like I can grab my .45 auto.

Gunsnrovers
August 6, 2004, 10:27 AM
While California has as good a track record in regards to self defense inside your home as the vast majority of states, the PRK is chuck full of lawyers and how things will go in the following civil suit is a different story all together.... :(

Gary H
August 6, 2004, 10:39 AM
I suspect that the answer depends upon where you live. Your local D.A. might view your actions as an execution of an individual that was a victim of their.... fill in the blank. You might just fit their image of an oppressive force in society. You had better be able to convince your (possibly liberal) peers that you had a valid fear of losing your life, or sustaining serious injury. Expect to lose everything that you have. The Civil case could be brutal.

tcdrennen
August 6, 2004, 11:03 AM
If you use deadly force on an armed intruder in your home or curtilage, Kali law says there's a Rebuttable Presumption of justifiable use of force on the part of the resident.

Rebuttable means a prosecutor has the burden of proof if he claims you DIDN'T have justification.

And, as noted by several others above, criminal law protections mean nothing in the civil suit that will inevitably follow - and your homeowner's insurance will also inevitable make an offer of settlement which you HOPE will be accepted by the BG's johnedwards - oops, I meant shysters, er, ambulance chasers, er, TRIAL LAWYERS, that's it, sorry... :evil:

And, of course IANAL, YMMV, void where prohibited, some assembly required, batteries not included. :rolleyes: :D

CJ
August 6, 2004, 12:16 PM
I was told (unofficial advice, from me it's worth exactly what you paid for it):

You are justified to shoot in California if ALL three of these aspects are present:

1) Capability to inflict death or serious bodily harm
2) Proximity to inflict said death or serious bodily harm
3) Demonstrated intent

As Jim and others pointed out, robber can involve these, although I believe lawyers LOVE to argue about 3), intent, esecially since, after the incident, the criminal would typically be dead or alive and claiming that he's just misunderstood and had no ill intent...

carp killer
August 7, 2004, 03:41 PM
A CCW instructor told the class;

1. You will be arrested. S.O.P. for LEO's. Justifiable or not. Be prepared to spend $$$ for bail.
2. You will be sued. S.O.P. for the scumbag's family and attorney. Especially if you own any assets of value. Be prepared to spend $$$ to defend your ass.
3. Your life will change forever. Be prepared to have to move. Most likely the scumbag's family or "friends" will want revenge. You will make the six o' clock news and be identified in the local news paper.



He just want's his students to ponder the ramifications BEFORE they pull the trigger in the PRK. Is your life or loved ones life worth the hell they are going to have to endure in the good 'ol PRK.










:what:

Carnitas
August 7, 2004, 10:01 PM
redhead...... 'Course, for most of us in California, a CCW is unlikely, so in the case of a carjacking, the option of shooting is unavailable to us.

Its only unlikely if insist upon living with a bunch of blue county liberals.

redhead
August 7, 2004, 11:24 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Carnitas. Sure. I insist on living here. Wouldn't have it any other way. :rolleyes:

Hawkmoon
August 7, 2004, 11:59 PM
Here's his interpretation "You may shoot someone in California is they are attempting to rob you."

And I was thinking "You can only shot someone to prevent an imminent injury"

Who is right?

(actually, I know I'm right, but need help showing him this)
He's right -- you're wrong.

Read it again. Where in the text you quoted does it say anything about "fear," "prevent," or "injury"?

It says "The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when to resist the attempt to commit a forcible or life threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that ... (C) the person acted under the belief that such a force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life threatening crime. Murder, mayham, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes"

Ignore the death clause, and it reads as follows: "(C) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself from ... a forcible and life threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes. "

Since the statute (or regulation, whatever it is) explicitely establishes that robbery is a life-threatening crime, you don't even need to do the "I feared for my life, Your Honor" bit. The legislature already did it for you. By definition, robbery is a life-threatening crime, and the law says you can kill another person in order to resist same.

Your buddy wins.

Gunsnrovers
August 8, 2004, 12:04 AM
CCW instructor told the class;

1. You will be arrested. S.O.P. for LEO's. Justifiable or not. Be prepared to spend $$$ for bail.
2. You will be sued. S.O.P. for the scumbag's family and attorney. Especially if you own any assets of value. Be prepared to spend $$$ to defend your ass.
3. Your life will change forever. Be prepared to have to move. Most likely the scumbag's family or "friends" will want revenge. You will make the six o' clock news and be identified in the local news paper.

He just want's his students to ponder the ramifications BEFORE they pull the trigger in the PRK. Is your life or loved ones life worth the hell they are going to have to endure in the good 'ol PRK.

Number 1 I don't 100% agree with, but 2 & 3 are almost a certainty REGARDLESS of where you live. Anyone who pulls the trigger needs to prepare for the aftermath.

Hawkmoon
August 8, 2004, 12:05 AM
So if some one is in your driveway stealing your car you can get your rifle and shot him because "The fear of an unlawful injury to the property of the
That's not "robbery." The term "robbery" connotes a face-to-face contact and removal of items from the victim's person. Stealing a car from a driveway is "theft," not "robbery." Sneaking into an empty house is "burglary," not robbery. Put a homeowner at home in bed and the burglar enters the bedroom and threatens the homeowner, and it escalates to robbery. If the homeowner sleeps through the whole episode, it remians burglary even if the goblin stole the fillings out of the homeowner's mouth.

If you enjoyed reading about "California Laws question?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!