Car Jacking--What would YOU Do?

[Kleanbore]

My State- Vehicle/House =Castle Law.

I don't think so. What is your basis for that assertion?

Dead assailant on Ground-Finger prints on Vehicle
They were made recently,obviously

That would not be sufficient to support a legal defense of self defense.

Person in Vehicle stated “Assailant Tapped on Glass with a crowbar- Yelling open door- as Trying to open door”

The actor's testimony would not be sufficient.

I say that…….. Because that IS what happened to the gentleman I spoke to with the scar on his head. I stated in post previously.

You are confusing disparate issues. your post described a man who had been pulled from his care and attacked. His response ell under basic self defense. The castle doctrine, had it applied to a car, would have been irrelevant.

 

[Zerodefect]

Check your local laws. Better yet, every state has a professional instructor(s) with Leo experience.

One of my local trainers specializes on law, and has tons of Leo in it's staff. They do a ton of department training as well. I'll have to mention this exact scenario at my next tune up.

I'm fairly certain in my area: We say no. Jacker get's pissed and becomes dangerous, we can vent him.

 

[Lnf Crzr]

I don't think so. What is your basis for that assertion?

That would not be sufficient to support a legal defense of self defense.

Ok Kleanbore.
I provided information from a Circumstance that was in reality from what happened in My state- And Not speculation of what could happen. If you want to respond to this- Please be in reality and not Speculate on the Laws in my State… Or on the example I’m providing for assistance to those who are try to gain more information about Carjacking.

Choose to understand it or choose not to understand it.

I comprehend you want to give opposition- perhaps as your statement or two was not accurate….

Yet I choose not to be repetitive in my information I’m providing in a thread, about a “ Carjacking That Happened “.

Let’s be More Productive about Informing accurate info- than Counter productive regarding information your not aware of…

Like a New out of school Prosecutor trying to Prove someone wrong.

Please- I’m not looking to start any argument.

I’m simply informing the Forum in this thread about a Circumstance that happened.

Thank you.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm fairly certain in my area: We say no. Jacker get's pissed and becomes dangerous, we can vent him.

"Your area" is a mystery, but in no jurisdiction is one justified in the use of deadly force because someone is angry or appears dangerous.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ok Kleanbore.
I provided information from a Circumstance that was in reality from what happened in My state- And Not speculation of what could happen.

Again, it had nothing to do with the provisions of a castle doctrine.

 

[Lnf Crzr]

The example I provided was exactly this. Assailant entered Vehicle-The Victim was dragged out of his car- struck in the head with a crowbar- Life in Danger-In My State where the doctrine of Castle law pertains to automobile Also.
I’m trying to explain without use of capital letters… Yet you can’t seem to understand…. MY STATE/ Castle. Here I’ll provide more for you/not the Forum … To learn.

And I care not to explain to Your post further.
Thank you
This is from My State and should explain.

 

[GNP]

The Castle Doctrine extends provisions protecting the right to defend one's residence (the "Castle") to other places, for the purpose of this discussion a vehicle.

 

[Kleanbore]

his is from My State and should explain.

California Penal Code 198.5 limits that coverage to one's residence.

"198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury."

We were not discussing "retreat", but the law does provide a presumption, albeit rebuttable, that deadly force would be justified--in the residence.

 

[Lnf Crzr]

Ah California….. That explains it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Rest assured, if anybody is in a shooting, especially one involving a homicide, odds are it's NOT going to be "simple" unless there's 3D IMAX with surround sound showing everything is clearly in one's favor.

The LoSD video to which I referred makes that more abundantly clear than many people may think. I strongly suggest accessing it and going through it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ah California….. That explains it.

I had though Cali to be "your state'. Had you provided a citation for your assertion about the Castle Doctrine, that would have been easily cleared up.

Again, the incident you described would not have involved the Castle Doctrine.

The video I mentioned in Post 98 should go a long way toward explaining why recent fingerprints on the car or someone having banged on the car with something, should not be relied upon as sufficient evidence in a defense of justification.

 

[Lnf Crzr]

[Deleted by staff--inapropriate]

I’m not a fan of Wrestling on a Forum.

Yet it seem like you have great opposition to anyone who post here on this Thread.

I stated - “My State” The Laws are in “My state”I was in reference to. Do you not comprehend that?

Dude was Carjacked- Shot the attacker- Went to Court…. No further legal matters happened- And The Castle law was what the Guy talked to me about Becouse when in court …. it was discussed.

Read….. “Other Laws/Other than California are in existence”

Golly- Man

My apologies for Any Inappropriate Post- You have made clear I’m stating. Simply giving information from a case in my state.
I understand your a Moderator…. I was being as polite and non argumentative as possible.

 

[Kleanbore]

I stated - “My State” The Laws are in “My state”I was in reference to. Do you not comprehend that?

Without your naming the state, you told us nothing.

 

[Jeff White]

I think this one has run it's course. Members need to remember that this forum is read worldwide. Laws pertaining to the use of of force in defense of oneself, others and property vary greatly in different jurisdictions. The forum is moderated with that in mind. It doesn't contribute to the discussion when a member who doesn't identify his location says it's legal in my state. That information is meaningless without knowing what state the member is in.

The conversation has degenerated in bloodlust comments like; Jacker get's pissed and becomes dangerous, we can vent him. Those comments might be appropriate at the range, in class and in the clubhouse, but they are not appropriate on an internet forum where they will live forever lying in wait for a prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney to find and use in a legal action after a defensive shooting.