Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

California Laws question?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sloth, Aug 6, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sloth

    Sloth Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    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.
     
  2. cosmos7

    cosmos7 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    PRK
    It's only during the commission of a felony that it applies.
     
  3. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    (this should probably be in L&P, but...)

    And from the CA penal code...

    In other words...what's the problem?
     
  4. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  5. Sloth

    Sloth Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    6
    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"?
     
  6. deej

    deej Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    449
    Location:
    (Occupied) California Republic
    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
     
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    Sloth: you're describing Grand Theft Auto, not robbery.

    CARJACKING is a form of Robbery.
     
  8. redhead

    redhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    '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.
     
  9. Gunsnrovers

    Gunsnrovers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    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.... :(
     
  10. Gary H

    Gary H Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    California
    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.
     
  11. tcdrennen

    tcdrennen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    438
    Location:
    Tustin, Orange County, PDR of Kalifornistan
    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
     
  12. CJ

    CJ Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    367
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    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...
     
  13. carp killer

    carp killer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Messages:
    340
    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:
     
  14. Carnitas

    Carnitas Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    336
    Location:
    Northern California
    Its only unlikely if insist upon living with a bunch of blue county liberals.
     
  15. redhead

    redhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    Thanks for the kind words, Carnitas. Sure. I insist on living here. Wouldn't have it any other way. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    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.
     
  17. Gunsnrovers

    Gunsnrovers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    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.
     
  18. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page