Yin

iTrader: (40)

^ HA me 2

stupidchicken03

iTrader: (38)

hatchy

iTrader: (5)

So Brucelee, what exactly would you have done had you been home?

TitanSTI

iTrader: (4)

you can just stop at that statement.

ruehl

iTrader: (19)

thanks for your wonderful contribution to this thread.

brucelee

iTrader: (6)

Tried to have gotten a description of the car at least!

TitanSTI

iTrader: (4)

youre very welcome.

Overbear

Wrong,

Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

Self-Defense Against Assault

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she
has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer
bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.

It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great
bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.
Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.
NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal
penalties.

Protecting One’s Home

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent
manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be
used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable
person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to
retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force,
increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances
apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation
to fear for his or her safety.

The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible
and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in
the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a
forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary
to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem,
rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

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 had
occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal
Code § 198.5.)
NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be
criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide.

Defense of Property

The lawful occupant of real property has the right to request a trespasser to leave the
premises. If the trespasser does not do so within a reasonable time, the occupant may use
force to eject the trespasser.
The amount of force that may be used to eject a trespasser is limited to that which a
reasonable person would believe to be necessary under the same or similar circumstances.
Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense
The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus,
where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the
attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no
further force may be used.
The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another.
However, if such person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the adversary
of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues the fight, the right of
self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any other person being assaulted.


The bold part is the great one, we, in CA do not have a duty to retreat, in fact we have had a "castle doctrine" on our books longer than any other state in the US.

AntiochCali

iTrader: (1)

You can use a weapon if others are threatened - a friend of mine from college was involved, the assailants were threatening his elderly parents, he used a target gun he owned and shot both.

The two guys he shot, unarmed, tried to have charges filed against him, but they were threatening his parents, so defending his parents justified the force, since they couldn't defend themselves. I think it also helped in his case, that they didn't die. He was arrested but released one day later. No charges. This was in Chico California.

Note : the gun was not to defend his or his parents property, but to defend his parents...people are confusing the issue, the property owner was defending his family.

ruehl

iTrader: (19)

cliff notes? and great body injury and threatening your life are pretty much the same thing since great body injury can kill you....

I got my "pretty sure" thoiugh from someone i know who was charged with manslaughter when three individuals broke into his house to steal the "medical" mary jane, he grew for himself and the other 4 card holders in the house. During the break in one used a baseball bat to beat both of his sons, one is now mental handicap went to high school with him just really sad. They hit the guy with a bat but he came too grabbed his gun shot and killed one of the them in the house and shot and killed one of the others as they ran to their car, he thought they were going for their gun or something. He was charged with manslaughter and they tried to add some type of hate crime to it too since the robbers were black and he was white. He spent some time in jail but was acquited, but the one robber who got away was charged and convicted with accessory or something similar to that since he planned the robbery that got his two accomplices killed. This happened about 3-4 years ago, i'll try to find the news article.