PDA

View Full Version : Use of deadly force?


ChuckBooty
03-10-2009, 9:34 PM
I've searched and can not find any clear description of Calfornia's use of deadly force laws. I'd like the option to use deadly force on someone for unlawfully entering my home...is this allowed? Do I have to claim that they guy threatened me? What if the guy is unarmed? Can possibly use deadly force on him while he's climbing in the window, or do I have to wait until he's already IN the window?

I'm sure somebody here has searched this out. Thanks!

edited for those of you who think that I'm insane...lol

NiteQwill
03-10-2009, 9:48 PM
Just don't shoot him/her in the back or you'll be going to jail for a long time for murder. ;)

Librarian
03-10-2009, 9:53 PM
I've searched and can not find any clear description of Calfornia's use of deadly force laws. I'd like to kill a guy for unlawfully entering my home...is this allowed? Do I have to claim that they guy threatened me? What if the guy is unarmed? Can I kill him while he's climbing in the window, or do I have to wait until he's already IN the window?

I'm sure somebody here has searched this out. Thanks!

Penal Code: 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.
It's not a good idea, usually, and you can expect to be arrested and prosecuted.

IMO, you really need to talk to a lawyer - in both the sense that this is too serious to take advice from anonymous internet posters, and the sense that your post suggests you may not be in a Good Place just now.

paintballergb
03-10-2009, 9:58 PM
You better make damn sure he is in you house. Not half in half out.

Some things to think about when shooting and killing someone in your house. First of all mentally dealing with taking a life, the stress that your family will experience, losing your weapon for a very long time because it will be evidence, tons of time wasted being interview/questioned/investigated, possibility of facing criminal charges if you do anything illegal. On top of all this, the money it would cost to clean up the blood and guts off your furniture, carpet, etc. Now all things being considered if you can "take them alive" it would be more advantageous for you to do so.

tyrist
03-10-2009, 10:20 PM
Make it your last resort and you will be fine.

Sam
03-10-2009, 10:22 PM
we must also remember that the objective is to stop, not to kill.

I also remember reading a penal code section that talks about a person who is not part of the household, if found inside of a person's home, is to assumed a threat to those inside the home. Help?

Knauga
03-10-2009, 10:22 PM
You are allowed to use deadly force if you are able to articulate a reasonable fear of your safety or the safety of others. If you can articulate a reasonable fear that justifies shooting somebody in the back, you will walk, it has happened.

In my CCW class, the use of force instructor (who is the Sheriff Dept's use of force instructor) described a situation where a man working in his family liquor store shot the five robbers, including one in the back while he was running out of the store. The justification was that there had been a gang holding up liquor stores in the area who were known to use a rifle. He claimed that he was in fear that the robber was running out to get the rifle and come back leaving him and his family in greater danger.

Of course you need to remember the jurisdiction you are in, some places you'll be arrested, charged and tried, in others they'll measure the groups and critique your technique.

The bottom line is this, if you pull the trigger on somebody you had better be able to articulate why you felt justified in using deadly force. In this state it is essentially up to the prosecutor to prove that you deliberately wanted to do harm and had no reasonable fear for your safety. Don't say something stupid like "I shot him because he was in my house".

Dr Rockso
03-10-2009, 10:29 PM
I'd like to kill a guy for unlawfully entering my home...is this allowed?
Er...if you do shoot an intruder, please don't talk to the police. Saying that you'd like to kill someone probably isn't a good way to avoid unwanted attention.

Dr Rockso
03-10-2009, 10:33 PM
we must also remember that the objective is to stop, not to kill.

I also remember reading a penal code section that talks about a person who is not part of the household, if found inside of a person's home, is to assumed a threat to those inside the home. Help?
Penal Code 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 had occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
Except for some civil protections, the above is pretty close to the 'castle doctrine' ideal. There is NO duty to retreat inside of your own home in California.

DRM6000
03-10-2009, 10:43 PM
you have to consider the scenario. is he a drunk who entered teh wrong house? maybe he thought the wife changed the locks on him so he crawled through the unlocked window? it's a plausable scenario given that track homes kinda all look alike.

the short answer is that you can't just blast a guy in your home without him being a threat.

fairfaxjim
03-10-2009, 10:43 PM
While IN YOUR HOME, PC 198.5 provides a presumption of threat:
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.

For this presumption to be valid, ALL 3 of the conditions in PC 198.5 must be met:

1. The intruder has unlawfully and forcibly entered your residence. Leaving doors unlocked, etc. that allow entrance without force may invalidate this presumption.

2. The intruder is NOT a member of the family or household.

3. You MUST know or resonably believe that an UNLAWFUL and FORCIBLE entry has been made.

This is not a blanket hunting license to shoot people in your home. It may not prevent you from being arrested and charged. It does require the prosecutor to prove that you did NOT have a reasonable fear when you shot someone, versus you having to prove that you did. If the prosecutor feels that you did not have an honest and real fear, they may challenge your 198.5 presumption.

leelaw
03-10-2009, 10:46 PM
You are never allowed to kill. Not even police officers may kill. They stop the threat. If the person is not posing a deadly threat to you, you may not shoot him - you get charged for murder by posting online stuff like your wishes to kill someone, should you ever use deadly force.

That you wish to kill someone is of concern to me.

lorax3
03-10-2009, 11:24 PM
This is how I interpret it, you may use deadly for protection of human life, or the life of others(Only when you are in imminent danger, not "oh well he could have hurt me with that rock in his hand". That being said it is generally a bad idea to use deadly force against someone for the protection of property, which includes pets.

As far as people above, use may you enough force in a situation to deescalate the situation to non life-threatening.

If a catch a buglar carrying your television out the window, killing him would not be legally wise. Not only is your life not in imminent danger, but you are using deadly force for the protection of property, not life.

Consult a lawyer for more advice.

-lorax

PatriotnMore
03-10-2009, 11:24 PM
This state needs to incorporate a "Castle Doctrine", like so many other states. If the report is written/worded as to cause suspicion regarding the lethal defense of home, or property, a real hell storm can/will arrive upon you and your family, in the form of jail time, legal fees, possible felony conviction, lawsuits from the family of the person killed, and many other important issues to maintaining a normal home life.

MP301
03-11-2009, 1:20 AM
Your post is disturbing the way you phrased it. You might want to clarify what you mean, exactly.

Yeah, cause just the fact that he posted this means that from this point forward, anything he does will be suspect..lying in wait...wanting to commit muder..etc etc..and a copy of this post will be blown up to wall mural size and read to the jury....again....and again....and again.....

Please think about what you are posting BEFORE you post it people!

ChuckBooty
03-11-2009, 5:28 AM
I guess you guys would need to know me to know that there was an attempt at humor in that posting (I almost titled my thread, "Can I kill a guy") But my question was valid...why have all of these firearms for "protection" if you don't know when or if you can use them to protect your family?

Mulay El Raisuli
03-11-2009, 5:50 AM
Er...if you do shoot an intruder, please don't talk to the police. Saying that you'd like to kill someone probably isn't a good way to avoid unwanted attention.

No, you shouldn't talk to the police after such an event. Here is a link showing why that is so.

The Raisuli

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865&q=source:013978398324611204467&hl=en

AngelDecoys
03-11-2009, 6:05 AM
...why have all of these firearms for "protection" if you don't know when or if you can use them to protect your family?

Not everyone owns firearms for self protection. There's the self defense crowd, hunters, and target shooters. There's overlap, but I know many in the target/hunting crowd that don't keep anything loaded at home.

I'd consult an attorney, hit the library, or see if you can sit in a CCW class. In CA, you do not have to retreat but you also must have the three universal conditions met.

1. Immediate threat
2. Imminent danger
3. Disparity of force (Ability to carry out threat)

Generally speaking, if any of those three conditions are not met, the shooting would not be considered legal/valid/justified (or whatever else you wish to call it). If not justified, you may end up in jail, face a long and expensive criminal trial followed by a civil suit regardless of how criminal proceedings turn up.

Still, its better to be the victor (then the victim), alive (then dead), the winner (instead of the loser).

There's a gazillion scenarios (and disagreements on what I've written above) so the best I can say is do some reading, and good luck.

7x57
03-11-2009, 8:00 AM
Of course you need to remember the jurisdiction you are in, some places you'll be arrested, charged and tried, in others they'll measure the groups and critique your technique.


:rofl: :rofl2:

I'm enjoying imagining the conversation.

Sheriff: "That took three shots, son. Thet thar nine em em ain't good for much unless you're a nazi or a Yoo-ro-peen. It just ain't, what-you-callit, humane. What are you, some kind of limp-wristed citified liberal? Here, try a man's gun for a change."

7x57

ChuckBooty
03-11-2009, 9:20 AM
It's all very confusing...I think I'll just stab the guy in the eye with a broken pencil.

Decoligny
03-11-2009, 9:27 AM
. If you can articulate a reasonable fear that justifies shooting somebody in the back, you will walk, it has happened.

In my CCW class, the use of force instructor (who is the Sheriff Dept's use of force instructor) described a situation where a man working in his family liquor store shot the five robbers, including one in the back while he was running out of the store. The justification was that there had been a gang holding up liquor stores in the area who were known to use a rifle. He claimed that he was in fear that the robber was running out to get the rifle and come back leaving him and his family in greater danger.

Of course you need to remember the jurisdiction you are in, some places you'll be arrested, charged and tried, in others they'll measure the groups and critique your technique.

The bottom line is this, if you pull the trigger on somebody you had better be able to articulate why you felt justified in using deadly force. In this state it is essentially up to the prosecutor to prove that you deliberately wanted to do harm and had no reasonable fear for your safety. Don't say something stupid like "I shot him because he was in my house".

If you come upon the guy as he is raiding your refrigerator, and he has laid his shotgun down on the counter, and he turns his back to you in order to grab his shotgun, then you have reasonable justification for shooting him in the back. Because if you had waited for him to turn around you feared he would blast you with the shotgun.

PatriotnMore
03-11-2009, 9:33 AM
It's all very confusing...I think I'll just stab the guy in the eye with a broken pencil.

They are on the banned list.:D

serkerone
03-11-2009, 9:41 AM
They are on the banned list.:D

how about a fountain pen?? LOL:43:

Meplat
03-11-2009, 10:17 AM
You are paraphrasing his actual language in a way that makes it sound more sinister than it really is. "I would like the option to use deadly force", does not translate to, "I want to kill a guy".

That said: After posting that question on the net, he damn sure better hope he doesn't have to shoot anyone any time soon. I would think a half competent DA could burry him under it.:eek:

OOPS! I think I just realized that Oaklander was probably quoting verbatim his original un-edited post. I apologize:o


Your post is disturbing the way you phrased it. You might want to clarify what you mean, exactly.

Meplat
03-11-2009, 10:50 AM
Get Masad Ayoobs' book "In the Gravest Extreme".

Beyond that, it is a very simple question that we seem to love to make complicated. The only real question you must answer is: "Am I, honest to god, in fear of death or great bodily harm to myself or others. It does not matter if you are in your home or out. It does not matter if your assailant is in your home or out. It does not matter if you are on the good ship lollypop. That is the only qualifier.

It is in your best interest to avoid having to shoot someone for a variety of reasons. You will have to live with the moral, psychological, legale, and financial aftermath. No matter the circumstances of the shooting, some or all of the consequences will range from highly unpleasant to devastating.

Finally: I am sure you know this but it always bears repeating, you never shoot to kill only to stop.;)


I've searched and can not find any clear description of Calfornia's use of deadly force laws. I'd like the option to use deadly force on someone for unlawfully entering my home...is this allowed? Do I have to claim that they guy threatened me? What if the guy is unarmed? Can possibly use deadly force on him while he's climbing in the window, or do I have to wait until he's already IN the window?

I'm sure somebody here has searched this out. Thanks!

edited for those of you who think that I'm insane...lol

Glock22Fan
03-11-2009, 1:11 PM
Get Masad Ayoobs' book "In the Gravest Extreme".

Beyond that, it is a very simple question that we seem to love to make complicated. The only real question you must answer is: "Am I, honest to god, in fear of death or great bodily harm to myself or others. It does not matter if you are in your home or out. It does not matter if your assailant is in your home or out. It does not matter if you are on the good ship lollypop. That is the only qualifier.

It is in your best interest to avoid having to shoot someone for a variety of reasons. You will have to live with the moral, psychological, legale, and financial aftermath. No matter the circumstances of the shooting, some or all of the consequences will range from highly unpleasant to devastating.

Finally: I am sure you know this but it always bears repeating, you never shoot to kill only to stop.;)

I absolutely agree with you. However, the burden of proof (that you were in fear of your life) in a law court would be less onorous if you were able to satisfy the three conditions of 198.5.

oaklander
03-11-2009, 1:21 PM
You are paraphrasing his actual language in a way that makes it sound more sinister than it really is. "I would like the option to use deadly force", does not translate to, "I want to kill a guy".

That said: After posting that question on the net, he damn sure better hope he doesn't have to shoot anyone any time soon. I would think a half competent DA could burry him under it.:eek:

OOPS! I think I just realized that Oaklander was probably quoting verbatim his original un-edited post. I apologize:o

LOL - I just deleted my post that was quoting his unedited post. . .

:D

Meplat
03-11-2009, 2:49 PM
I absolutely agree with you. However, the burden of proof (that you were in fear of your life) in a law court would be less onorous if you were able to satisfy the three conditions of 198.5.

I agree. However, in a life or death split second situation you had better not start processing all these questions. After contemplating these questions for years (which all of us who go forth armed should do) I have decided, for me, that is the bottom line. If you are truly in fear of your life, no matter what the law says, should you hesitate? Even if you wind up crossways of an overzealous DA your conscience will be clear. I am a big fan of Doc Holiday. He once said: "If there's one to be buried and one to be tried, I'll see you in court."

As you may have noted I also recommended Ayoob's book which I think is one of the best treatments of this subject in existence. With that information and the more California specific information available on this forum the OP should give an extremely large amount of thought to the question and develope his own trigger point, now. Because if it ever happens he will not have time to study the situation.:thumbsup:

gunsmith
03-11-2009, 2:59 PM
Just don't shoot him/her in the back or you'll be going to jail for a long time for murder. ;)

bovine excrement!

some stranger walking around my house aint getting the chance to turn around and shoot me.
Real life aint some 1950's western B movie!!!

gunsmith
03-11-2009, 3:07 PM
you have to consider the scenario. is he a drunk who entered teh wrong house? maybe he thought the wife changed the locks on him so he crawled through the unlocked window? it's a plausable scenario given that track homes kinda all look alike.

the short answer is that you can't just blast a guy in your home without him being a threat.

yes you can!, you can shoot the dumb drunk that climbs through a window!!!!
It isn't up to the tenant/owner to be psychic or a cop trained in apprehending felons.
A drunk breaking into your house is a potential deadly threat.

SgtDinosaur
03-11-2009, 4:13 PM
Get Masad Ayoobs' book "In the Gravest Extreme".


+1 The best advice I have ever seen on what to do in the event of a shooting.

Meplat
03-11-2009, 5:25 PM
+1 The best advice I have ever seen on what to do in the event of a shooting.

Thank you.

I really believe that all who go armed need to give these questions deep and serious thought. You must understand what the state says is right and what You believe is right. In the end, to thine own self be true.:thumbsup:

ChuckBooty
03-11-2009, 7:32 PM
Like I said...I phrased it the way I did as an attempt at humor (I'd like to kill a guy if...). But I gotta be honest with you. I have three little girls and a pregnant wife....if you break into my house you're dead. I don't think that is psychotic or anything...but I have a family that depends on me to protect them. You won't hear me yell "freeze!" or "hands up!"...you'll hear click-CLACK! And that'll be it.

Meplat
03-11-2009, 7:51 PM
I understand and agree. I'm just saying, think real hard on it before hand cause you aint gonna have time to figure it out in real time. If you are afraid for yourself or your family you are good to go.:thumbsup:

Like I said...I phrased it the way I did as an attempt at humor (I'd like to kill a guy if...). But I gotta be honest with you. I have three little girls and a pregnant wife....if you break into my house you're dead. I don't think that is psychotic or anything...but I have a family that depends on me to protect them. You won't hear me yell "freeze!" or "hands up!"...you'll hear click-CLACK! And that'll be it.

MP301
03-12-2009, 1:57 AM
Like I said...I phrased it the way I did as an attempt at humor (I'd like to kill a guy if...). But I gotta be honest with you. I have three little girls and a pregnant wife....if you break into my house you're dead. I don't think that is psychotic or anything...but I have a family that depends on me to protect them. You won't hear me yell "freeze!" or "hands up!"...you'll hear click-CLACK! And that'll be it.

Glad you edited your post because what you say can and WILL be used against you. This includes what you write (hint hint!). If something can be twisted, humor or not, to screw you, it will be twisted

That said, let me try and put it in perspective for you. Please dont make statements like this

"You won't hear me yell "freeze!" or "hands up!"...you'll hear click-CLACK! And that'll be it"

Im not even a prosecutor, but I can take that statement and fornicate the crap out of you in court with it! You can be made to look like a blood thirsty "cant wait for my chance to shoot someone" type of guy. Especially in this state!

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you can see by his own statement, Mr X was only interested in shooting first and asking questions later! 15 year old nieghbor boy Tommy Jones, who has never in trouble with the law, accidently broke Mr X's window and was trying to retrieve his baseball. Mr X then, without so much as a thought or a warning, shot him down like a dog under the guise of protecting his family! It didnt matter to him that poor little Tommy was an unarmed honor student!"

I could go on forever down these lines, but I think you get the point. And the reality is, you should know the law as cited by others earlier in this post and never shoot anyone unless a reasonable person would feel as if they or their family were in real danger.

You should be commended for taking personal responsibility for protecting yourself and your family, but part of your responsibility is to do your best to stay out of jail as well. Its kind hard to protect them at a later date if your doing time for a perceived bad shooting, yes?

The best you can hope for...the best possible scenario.... if you have to shoot someone, is keeping what you have. It would benefit you not to seem so eager to use deadly force, at least in freakin writing!!!!

Just my 2 cents worth because I care! :D

PatriotnMore
03-12-2009, 4:32 AM
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you can see by his own statement, Mr X was only interested in shooting first and asking questions later! 15 year old nieghbor boy Tommy Jones, who has never in trouble with the law, accidently broke Mr X's window and was trying to retrieve his baseball. Mr X then, without so much as a thought or a warning, shot him down like a dog under the guise of protecting his family! It didnt matter to him that poor little Tommy was an unarmed honor student!"


Well played, Sir. This is what you will be playing against.

AngelDecoys
03-12-2009, 6:12 AM
"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you can see by his own statement, Mr X was only interested in shooting first and asking questions later! 15 year old nieghbor boy Tommy Jones, who has never in trouble with the law, accidently broke Mr X's window and was trying to retrieve his baseball. Mr X then, without so much as a thought or a warning, shot him down like a dog under the guise of protecting his family! It didnt matter to him that poor little Tommy was an unarmed honor student!"

Very nice. And I was thinking of the neighbor's 12 year old honor roll daughter looking for her lost puppy. The poor girl who came in through the (accidentally left open) sliding glass door.

The three conditions. If they aren't met, shooting is not reasonable.
1. Immediate threat
2. Imminent danger
3. Disparity of force (Ability to carry out threat).

If the OP was involved in either scenario or something similar (and were I on the jury), his family would be visiting him in jail.