PDA

View Full Version : California Property Protection... Brandishing/Assault


dgrolem
03-17-2006, 9:45 AM
In reading "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail", there seems to be some contradicting laws concerning property protection. Surprise, surprise. I wanted to get a perspective.

Chap. 2 says you may carry an unconcealed, loaded weapon if you or YOUR PROPERTY is in immediate grave danger.

Lethal force IS NOT authorized to protect property, real (as in real estate) or otherwise. Lethal force can only be used to protect you or someone else.

OK. Understood.

My concern is in the following scenario. Person is in the process of stealing my car in my drive way or on the street in front of the house. Reality is, I don't want to shoot him/her (illegal anyway), or arrest them. I simply want them to go away:eek:

Is display of the gun to "convince" them to retreat considered brandishing?

Will the rules change if the car is not on my property but on a public street?

Is pointing the gun at them and demanding they stop considered assault?

I do understand that if they choose to ignore the gun, I am "stuck" with no recourse unless they attack me.

Thanks All!

xLusi0n
03-17-2006, 10:12 AM
If you live in CA and someone is stealing you're car, tell them that even though they've taken you're car, they'll never take the 1,000,000 diamond pimp necklace in you're house...

As soon as they step into you're house (making sure door is closed and no one can see (witness), blow them away.

glen avon
03-17-2006, 10:17 AM
did you read the penal code sections? that usually spells it out.

ajwells
03-17-2006, 11:10 AM
ILethal force can only be used to protect you or someone else.


Does this part count if say you were out somewhere and saw someone you didn't know about to be raped or something? If you had a CCW in this case, would you be allowed to draw and run over there to protect that person? Or does it have to be you?

shopkeep
03-17-2006, 11:36 AM
In California, if someone decides to trash your car and house right in front of your face all you can do is stand there on your cell phone with the police. That is, _IF_ the police ever answer your call :(!

Even if you were able to lure them inside your house, you'd probably be sued/arrested for shooting them anyways.

As if to add insult to injury whoever trashed your place will likely not have to pay for the damages in the end (most criminals have very low net worth), and they will end up spending very little time in jail.

Mesa Tactical
03-17-2006, 11:59 AM
If the situation does not call for the use of deadly force, keep the guns stowed.

Supernam
03-17-2006, 12:41 PM
If you think about it, if police were to arrive and draw their guns, they too can't shoot or even threaten to shoot (although it can be perceived as such). The weapons are merely drawn to protect themselves should the suspects become dangerous. Pretty much the only force difference between them and you is that they can use physical force to apprehend and arrest someone.

This question is a technical one, food for thought. But in reality, if you come out with a shotgun and give it a "chuck-chuck", they'll be skirting off with their tails between their legs. :D

Personally, I think you have a few options. You can call the police and the perp would get a suprise and get arrested in the process. You can come out with gun in hand if the act is being perpetrated on your property say in your driveway, but if he runs, you can't do anything about it really unless you drop your gun and tackle him. In that case, you might get screwed because what if it turns out he was armed? You can't chase him beyond the boarder of your property because that would be illegal carry. So abiding strictly to the written law, you can give chase on foot but if he gets away, that would suck. It would be more beneficial in my opinion to call the po po and have the suspect apprehended than to give chase and either get hurt if he's armed, or run the possiblility of him getting away if you intended to just scare him off.

I think many people realistically, would simply want that- to scare them away from the car/property without any real confrontation. I prefer to have the person caught in the act, arrested, and put in jail.

Now, if someone was getting rapped/assaulted right off of my property say across the street from my house, I would come out armed and stop the act first by scare tactic and second by physical force if necessary. This is someones life we're talking about. If you choose to do nothing while someone is being brutally assaulted, then you're a coward. Also, you don't always have to be armed with a gun, a baseball bat can be just as effective, but you run the risk of the perpetrator having more superior weapons.

sierratangofoxtrotunion
03-17-2006, 1:40 PM
How bout: you've got the perp in your driveway at gunpoint and he knows it and he figures if he moves an inch he's dead so he's not moving and you keep that up until the cops (that your wife is on the phone with) show up.

Satex
03-17-2006, 3:35 PM
If I understood the book correctly, you can use equal or less force to remove him from your property. I.e. if this guy is vandalizing your vehicle you can walk over and push him away from your vehicle. I think this would be similar to getting a trespasser off your property. Now, if he starts putting up a fight, you may increase your efforts to fend him off as he does so. If he pulls out a gun, or does anything to make you think that your life is in danger, at that point you may act with deadly force. I believe that the book keeps on emphasizing the fact that you have to "truly and honestly" believe that your life or someone else’s life is in grave danger for you to act with deadly force of any kind.
The law definitely protects the criminals more than it does the law abiding citizen and that is unfortunate.

grammaton76
03-17-2006, 3:42 PM
This is a big part of why I went with the Crimson Trace grips - red dots are very scary. :)

If he's busily trashing your car... bear in mind that if you walk towards the person, and continue walking towards him, generally speaking he's either going to threaten your person or back off. It's very unlikely that he's going to be trashing your car with his bare hands either, so that constitutes a weapon... the minute he swings that thing at you or starts to charge, he's yours if you have the gun in your hand already. Assuming you have the CT grips installed.

Of course, with iron sights, this is a lot more risky.

WhiteSands
03-17-2006, 3:48 PM
MAke sure no one is around.

Shoot him.

Place large stcik in his dead hand hand or next to him.

"I thought is was a weapon"

Works for LEOS.

D.T. Rouland
03-17-2006, 3:56 PM
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf Page 30.

One quote I found interesting :"One is not bound to retreat even though a retreat might safely be made." Hm.

It would seem that using a firearm to ward off someone from stealing your car would be looked at as excessive. I think that's a load of crap but onfortunately, I'm not wearing the badge. There are a couple LEOs on the board, should try to get them to chime in.

grammaton76
03-17-2006, 3:59 PM
It would seem that using a firearm to ward off someone from stealing your car would be looked at as excessive. I think that's a load of crap but onfortunately, I'm not wearing the badge. There are a couple LEOs on the board, should try to get them to chime in.

I believe USING the firearm would be regarded as excessive. The firearm is only there to protect you, should the perp attack you as you're trying to tell him to leave your car alone.

If he DOES make that ill informed decision, he's crossed the line to personal assault and has chosen death for himself. :)

D.T. Rouland
03-17-2006, 4:15 PM
I believe USING the firearm would be regarded as excessive. The firearm is only there to protect you, should the perp attack you as you're trying to tell him to leave your car alone.

If he DOES make that ill informed decision, he's crossed the line to personal assault and has chosen death for himself. :)

That's different though isn't it? Far as I know, you can carry openly or concealed while on your property which I personally do.Just having it on you is one thing. In the original scenario, are we talking about drawing down on the guy in your car or just having it with you?

vrylak
03-17-2006, 4:21 PM
also, before you start pumping lead, make sure the perp or perps is/are bigger and heavier than you, that way if words don't make him/them stop, which the anti-gun crowd believes is an effective 'weapon', and he/they start charging at you, then you surely are or will be in fear for your life and only then you could start pumping him/them with lead.

CalExile
03-17-2006, 4:32 PM
Once Cal gun owners are successful in changing the laws to allow any firearm of any type, the next step should be to pass a self-defense law like Florida. Florida recently passed a law allowing homeowners to use deadly force to dirtbags that enter there homes uninvited. What a difference in philosophy...

Rob Jones
03-17-2006, 4:43 PM
Actually, CA law is quite good when it comes to defending yours or another one's innocent life. As noted earlier, you do NOT have to retreat from a threat, although it might be wise to (especially in a public place). You can use whatever force is necessary to stop an illegal act that is threatening your life or another innocent life; that force must be reasonable and can only be used as long as the threat still exists. You cannot use deadly force to protect property from theft or damage.

Now, if you hear someone stealing your car from your driveway and you decide to investigate, by all means take a loaded firearm with you. The purpose here is to defend your life, should it become necessary. Note that you cannot merely start shooting at the thief; he must first do something that threatens yours (or another person's) life. And, the BG (bad guy) does NOT have to be inside your house! That's a common misconception. All that is necessary is for you to be able to convince a jury composed of 'reasonable' people that innocent life was threatened to justify the use of deadly force.

You can also use a handgun to effect a citizen's arrest, but now you're getting into a gray area. Even though I have a CCW, in most cases I would never attempt to perform a citizen's arrest (although I did have an El Cajon PD officer have me perform a citizen's arrest on a guy, after which he immediately placed the guy uder arrest!).

In short, you can defend innocent life with whatever force is required to stop said innocent life from harm. As soon as the threat is gone, you must cease. Also, CA recently made it legal to use deadly force to stop a child abduction in progress.

Rob

Paladin
03-17-2006, 5:49 PM
Also, you don't always have to be armed with a gun, a baseball bat can be just as effective, but you run the risk of the perpetrator having more superior weapons.

Stuff your gun in the rear of your pants (Clipdraw), grab a baseball bat in your off hand and a large can of pepper spray in your stong hand as you exit your home. Walk up, stay on your property, drench BG in pepper spray, drop can, and see what he does. If he threatens you in a way that you reasonably believe to cause imminent death or grave bodily injury, draw & do what you are forced to do. If he acts any other way, grab the bat w/both hands and use whatever reasonable non-deadly force (e.g., no hits to the head; if he gives up, stop the counterattack), is necessary to protect your property. Note well: he may show you what he'll do before you go thru this whole sequence. Be ready!

I AM NOT A LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS OFFERING LEGAL ADVICE. THIS IS PURELY MY PERSONAL OPINION ON DEFENSIVE TACTICS AND IS WORTH WHAT YOU PAID FOR IT.

dgrolem
03-17-2006, 6:12 PM
To make things clear, this was not one of those threads where I am asking... "help me justify shooting this jerk". I don't want to shoot him, even though I'd be very pissed:mad: , I don't even want to hurt him. I just want to encourage him to leave. The presence of a firearm is insurance that he won't attempt physical violence.

I just want to make sure that if I encourage his exit, that I don't have a legal problem waiting for me. I understand that waving a firearm around making making threats is going to get me in trouble.

I would make him aware of it's presence. Demand he stop and that the police are on their way. If he refused to stop, I'd bear down on him. If he didn't stop... well, I'd have egg on my face.

The issue came about after talking to some LEOs that 911 could easily be a 20-40 minute wait.

DR-G
03-17-2006, 6:45 PM
non leos have the same authority to make an arrest when the crime is occurring in front f them. The law says you can use that force necessary to overcome resistance while making that arrest.

Having said that don't think lethal force is an option for a property crime unless the bad guy escalates the situation.

Also if you do decide to "go hands on" be careful most crooks don't work alone

MadMex
03-17-2006, 7:57 PM
Out of curiosity, how many respondents to this thread actually have a ccw and / or are versed in Kali’s lethal force laws?

My favorite scenario questions that ccw instructors ask are:
1) In the middle of the night in the dark a guy kicks open your front door and enters your home screaming “Let’s get it on”!!! You are awaken from a dead sleep, scared out of your mind, and the wife and kids are screaming “Save us daddy, save us!” Can you legally shoot at that moment?
2) In the middle of the night you hear somebody downstairs and go to investigate. You happen upon a guy walking towards the front door with your $5000 flat screen in his paws. You tell him to drop the TV. He says “bite me” and keeps walking towards the door. Can you legally shoot at that moment?
3) You hear a noise outside. Your dogs are barking like crazy, something is up. You look outside and see a guy ready to throw a Molotov cocktail through your kitchen window. Can you legally shoot at that moment?

Remember one thing, if you are not in a situation / setting that you know the background and history of, there are cameras just about everywhere these days. Don’t kid yourself about pulling off an unjustified shoot on a turd that deserve lead, and being able to concoct some BS rap about your life being threatened.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 8:23 PM
You guys make this all too hard. Read the California Penal Code, starting with section 837. All this BS about inside or outside your house means little. It all depends on the situation. Any citizen may use that force necessary to protect him/herself and others, or to effect an arrest. Protecting property is different, but then again, you may make a citizen's arrest, and if the arrestee resists......read the penal code.

Key word; Reasonable

Don't worry about the civil (lawsuit) implications. You will probably get sued at least once in your life anyhow. Too many damn lawyers!

1911_sfca
03-17-2006, 8:51 PM
This is a big part of why I went with the Crimson Trace grips - red dots are very scary. :)

You'd better make sure you have the right to shoot him in SELF DEFENSE before you go around painting laser dots on somebody. Read penal code section 417.25 for more information.

MadMex
03-17-2006, 8:58 PM
You'd better make sure you have the right to shoot him in SELF DEFENSE before you go around painting laser dots on somebody. Read penal code section 417.25 for more information.
Unfortunately this is exactly why weapon mounted lights will get you in trouble in Kali.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 8:59 PM
10-4 on that....

If everybody read and understood the penal code there would be far less confusion and pontification around here.

For what it's worth, the CPC is fairly easy to understand and it is, after all, the law of our land here in the PRK.

1911_sfca
03-17-2006, 9:02 PM
This thread is really scary... take the advice posted here with a a grain of salt (and any legal advice on Calguns, for that matter).

You guys make this all to hard. Read the California Penal Code, starting with section 837. All this BS about inside or outside your house means little. It all depends on the situation. Any citizen may use that force necessary to protect him/herself and others, or to effect an arrest. Protecting property is different, but then again, you may make a citizen's arrest, and if the arrestee resists......read the penal code.

There is a distinction to be made here.. a police officer, under PC 835a and 843, is authorized to use sufficient force to "overcome resistance." A private person, making an arrest, is authorized only to use sufficient force to effect the arrest.

This means the cop can use force exceeding any resistance. But you, as a private citizen, can use force to meet (and basically, defend yourself).

So in summary, if you're gonna use a gun while effecting a private person's arrest, there better be DEADLY FORCE that you're up against.

This is a really complicated subject and difficult to discuss on a forum like this, in abstract terms... Reading the penal code in this area is a good start.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 10:13 PM
"This means the cop can use force exceeding any resistance. But you, as a private citizen, can use force to meet (and basically, defend yourself)."

A LEO CANNOT use excessive force. Period. Ask LAPD. They too may use only that force necessary. "Overcome resistance" and "that force necessary" is a matter of semantics. It means the same thing. The penal code makes it very clear that LEOs enjoy no special status in violating civil rights.

A citizen of this state has virtually the same rights of self defense as well as powers of arrest as a LEO. The only real difference is a LEO may arrest, on probable cause, without a warrant, for a felony committed out of his presence. (PC 836)

As far as using a baseball bat, knife or gun to effect an arrest, or defend oneself, that all depends on the citizen's ability to articulate. The key phrase is "I felt that I was in imminent danger of great bodily harm, and feared for my safety".

xLusi0n
03-17-2006, 10:44 PM
It's not about reading the penal code, its not even about how you interpret the penal code, its how the LEO, DA, and Jury interpret it.

11Z50
03-17-2006, 11:11 PM
It's not about reading the penal code, its not even about how you interpret the penal code, its how the LEO, DA, and Jury interpret it.
In the final analysis it's only the jury that matters.

The LEO's and DA's simply enforce the laws. The Judicial branch interprets it.

The Penal Code is the rule book and if you don't know it, you are ignorant at your own risk.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-18-2006, 1:36 AM
One thing to keep in mind if you are talking about juries and such. If you claim self defense you are putting up what is called an Affirmative Defense. That means the burden moves from the State, beyond a reasonable doubt, to YOU. Yes, you will have to prove that you acted reasonably. I dont think the burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, but perponderance of the evidence....bascially 51% to 49% in your favor for aquittal. You definitely want to keep that in mind when thinking of using deadly force.

artherd
03-18-2006, 2:58 AM
My concern is in the following scenario. Person is in the process of stealing my car in my drive way or on the street in front of the house. Reality is, I don't want to shoot him/her (illegal anyway), or arrest them. I simply want them to go away:eek:

FSCK NO MAN!

Jesus, even displaying the butt of a previously concealed gun is escelating a situation immediately to the deadly-force level. If I was breaking into your car, and you displayed/pointed a gun at me, and ***I*** shot ***YOU***, I'd not only get off, but be justified in doing so.

Deadly force is legal ONLY TO PROTECT YOU OR ANOTHER FROM SEVERE BODILY HARM, OR DEATH. PERIOD!!!

artherd
03-18-2006, 2:59 AM
Does this part count if say you were out somewhere and saw someone you didn't know about to be raped or something? If you had a CCW in this case, would you be allowed to draw and run over there to protect that person? Or does it have to be you?
You can shoot a rapist (actually raping someone) in the head with a rifle from across the street.


Just *ahem*, be sure you're right.

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:03 AM
Once Cal gun owners are successful in changing the laws to allow any firearm of any type, the next step should be to pass a self-defense law like Florida. Florida recently passed a law allowing homeowners to use deadly force to dirtbags that enter there homes uninvited. What a difference in philosophy...

ACTUALLY, CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAD THIS LAW, CALLED CASTLE DOCTORINE!!!

artherd
03-18-2006, 3:12 AM
A citizen of this state has virtually the same rights of self defense as well as powers of arrest as a LEO. The only real difference is a LEO may arrest, on probable cause, without a warrant, for a felony committed out of his presence. (PC 836)
Almost completely correct. (I belive LEO can also arrest on PC for misdomenors not committed in their presence as well.) I am actually relatively certin that upon PC, a citizen can effect an arrest on another for a FELONY only that they do not have personal direct knowlege of. (example: "That dude just robbed a bank!" )

This is how you deal with the perp breaking into your car. Place him under citizens arrest, at which point he resists arrest, and you use nessecary force (if he struggles, you can basically just pin him, if he draws a knife you can shoot him.) to effect your arrest, which he was resisting.

Only thing on citizen's arreasts, MAKE DAMN SURE YOU ARE RIGHT! If you're wrong, there's no agency to pick up the tab for the resulting civil suit.

The biggest difference between LE and non-LE is the civil liability protection afforded sworn LE.

Mesa Tactical
03-18-2006, 6:56 AM
The issue came about after talking to some LEOs that 911 could easily be a 20-40 minute wait.

While this is true in many cases, in many other cases the LEOs are there within a couple minutes. Do you think your car thief wants to wait around to play the odds?

I'd expect that in the situation you have described, standing on your lawn with a cell phone and speaking to the 911 dispatcher is all the deterrent you would need.

Anonymous Coward
03-18-2006, 7:43 AM
I always wondered about this....

In a defensive situation like the one with protecting property, what is brandishing?
1) Is drawing and concealed or unconcealed weapon to low ready (pointed in safe direction) brandishing?
2) Is drawing and concealed or unconcealed weapon to aim (pointing at the perp) brandishing?

It seems like in the dictionary definition of brandishing
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

there's an aggressive/threatening component...

Mesa Tactical
03-18-2006, 8:07 AM
First, dictionary definitions, which are so often trotted out on the Internet, are almost always useless, especially in cases like this. Dictionary definitions never reference the context in which terms are used, and the context is as important as the words themselves.

In the current case, we aren't talking about a dictionary definition, we are discussing a legal definition. What is the legal definition of "brandishing?" I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but we can be pretty sure that Webster's is never considered an authority on this legal point.

As with so many legal principles, I suspect the definition is variable, depending on circumstances and what a "reasonable" person could be expected to think. If you are at a shooting range and are having a mild political discussion with someone in the neighboring lane, would the fact there is a gun in your hand be considered brandishing? Doubtful. If you were having the same discussion in a fabric store, and you presented a handgun, keeping it pointed in a safe direction at all times, do you think a "reasonable" person would consider that brandishing? I'm pretty sure most DAs would.

harley66
03-18-2006, 9:09 AM
I have been reading this post and what "I" see here is a lot of "What if's" It is my understanding that if Deadly force is used and you are in court having a CCW is secondary to the issue at hand...

You are going to have to convince those 12 people on the jury that You felt either your life or a family members life was at risk or great bodliy injury. I think you are going to have a hard fight on your hands if you took your gun outside your house and "racked" the slide or tried to arrest someone.... You were in a safe house with a phone and you "chose" to go outside??? Using deadly force is a big deal in CA - other states have different rules (check out NV - very interesting views on this".

If you have a CCW or not... the min you take out your gun or even suggest you have one - YOU just move the situation "up a notch" At that moment were you in fear of your life ??? That is what YOU are going to have to prove...

put yourself on the jury... some person shot and killed someone else (ya, it was a bad guy (maybe) but they are dead never-the-less..... you hear this story about him being in bed - hears a noise out side - he chooses to leave the saftey of his house with a gun... finds someone breaking into his car... tries to arrest him - BG says "nope" and starts to leave... You try to retain him... a fight starts and the BG gets shot and killed..... This is the "scene" I have seen stated here.... The problem starts when the homeowner leaves the saftey of his house and goes out side... This is a mess you do not want to be in... Its just a car - now if you stay in your house - yell or turn on a light... the BG kicks your door in and charges you - different story -

get my point here..

BTW - Took a CCW class in NV June of 03 - was told at that class that in NV - if a BG is in your house - NV states it is "assumed" you life is in Danger and you are allowed to proceed as necessary --NV residents please chime in here and either confrim or correct this statment..

NV is one of those states that will Not honor another states CCW - but take a one day class and anyone can get a CCW for NV - which several other sates reconize - follow that one??? lol

Be very careful out there

xLusi0n
03-18-2006, 10:22 AM
In the final analysis it's only the jury that matters.

The LEO's and DA's simply enforce the laws. The Judicial branch interprets it.

The Penal Code is the rule book and if you don't know it, you are ignorant at your own risk.

Yea, it's in that order too, if the LEO doesn't arrest you, it stops there...if goes on adn teh DA doesn't prosecute you, it stops there...if that fails and goes to trial...hope the jury has some mercy or you have a realllly good lawyer :)

FreedomIsNotFree
03-18-2006, 6:22 PM
Almost completely correct. (I belive LEO can also arrest on PC for misdomenors not committed in their presence as well.) I am actually relatively certin that upon PC, a citizen can effect an arrest on another for a FELONY only that they do not have personal direct knowlege of. (example: "That dude just robbed a bank!" )

This is how you deal with the perp breaking into your car. Place him under citizens arrest, at which point he resists arrest, and you use nessecary force (if he struggles, you can basically just pin him, if he draws a knife you can shoot him.) to effect your arrest, which he was resisting.

Only thing on citizen's arreasts, MAKE DAMN SURE YOU ARE RIGHT! If you're wrong, there's no agency to pick up the tab for the resulting civil suit.

The biggest difference between LE and non-LE is the civil liability protection afforded sworn LE.

One thing to keep in mind when placing someone under citizens arrest. You had better be 100% sure the person you are arresting is guilty. If not, you are looking at one hell of a civil lawsuit. PC or no PC the crime better have been committed in your presence and you are 100% sure you are arresting the proper person.

11Z50
03-18-2006, 7:08 PM
Even though one must use extreme care in making a citizen's arrest, as long as a reasonable and prudent person would believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed, one is justified in making a citizen's arrest, even if it turns out later to be in error.

Sure, you can be sued; anybody can file a lawsuit about anything. If you can convince a civil jury that you were acting in good faith, made a lawful arrest, and later it was discovered the arrestee didn't do it, you are OK.

Example:

You hear glass breaking at 0300, the a woman screaming. You look out the window and see a man jump out the neigbor's broken window and attempt to flee. You advise the man he is under citizen's arrest, and hold him at gunpoint until the cops arrive.

When the Cops arrive, they accept the citizen's arrest. Later, it turns out the suspect was the neighbor's boyfriend, who fled because he thought the lady's husband had arrived. They release the guy with no charges.

You had every right to make the citizen's arrest because you reasonably believed a crime (Burglary and maybe Rape) had been committed. While you might get sued, a jury would have a hard time finding for the plantiff in a civil trial.

DParker
03-18-2006, 7:27 PM
... in NV - if a BG is in your house - NV states it is "assumed" you life is in Danger and you are allowed to proceed as necessary --NV residents please chime in here and either confrim or correct this statment..



Same in CA....from page 31 of the California Gun Laws 2005

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.

Satex
03-18-2006, 8:04 PM
In the case you describe, would a person have the right to perform a citizen's arrest? The man running is retreating and therefore another person may not have the right to try to stop him?



Example:

You hear glass breaking at 0300, the a woman screaming. You look out the window and see a man jump out the neigbor's broken window and attempt to flee. You advise the man he is under citizen's arrest, and hold him at gunpoint until the cops arrive.

When the Cops arrive, they accept the citizen's arrest. Later, it turns out the suspect was the neighbor's boyfriend, who fled because he thought the lady's husband had arrived. They release the guy with no charges.

You had every right to make the citizen's arrest because you reasonably believed a crime (Burglary and maybe Rape) had been committed. While you might get sued, a jury would have a hard time finding for the plantiff in a civil trial.

artherd
03-18-2006, 9:19 PM
One thing to keep in mind when placing someone under citizens arrest. You had better be 100% sure the person you are arresting is guilty. If not, you are looking at one hell of a civil lawsuit. PC or no PC the crime better have been committed in your presence and you are 100% sure you are arresting the proper person.

Thanks, I think I covered that when I said in all caps "MAKE DAMN SURE YOU ARE RIGHT!"

Infact, your post is interperative advice not based on law, and given withought a licence to practice law. You reiterate the same point I have effectively made (that one need be CERTAIN they have hte right person and that a crime WAS committed.) then you go on to render an un-tennable opinion that PC is irrelivant.

You sound about as smart as the DOJ goons, and seem about as effective.

artherd
03-18-2006, 9:20 PM
In the case you describe, would a person have the right to perform a citizen's arrest? The man running is retreating and therefore another person may not have the right to try to stop him?
What in the hell difference does that make?!

11Z50
03-18-2006, 9:50 PM
Nobody is immune from being sued save the legislature, and in some cases, the military. Here's the deal. If you see a crime being committed, you have to make a choice: get involved or not. If you choose "not", stop reading now, and go on with your blissfully apathetic life.

If you choose to involve yourself, be prepared to get involved. You might get sued (so what) or even wind up getting arrested yourself. Shiz happens, and in the few seconds you have to make a decision, all kinds of wierd stuff can go down.

Read 837 PC and associated sections and understand them. The law does not expect anyone to stand by while a crime is, or is about to be committed. If you act in good faith, and can articulate that, you will have no problems.

harley66
03-18-2006, 10:05 PM
more what if's - again, in you story you pull a gun and "it seems the guy just stands there" when a gun is pulled,,, you just jumped things up a notch... your life was not in danger - you pulled the gun... call 911, and protect yourself... thats why its called 'self defense'

you have NO way of knowing - the woman may have been the bad guy and the "Man" you saw jump from the window may be the homeowner running for his life... here you are playing cop - get excited and hit the trigger "bang" you just murdered the good guy -- artherd said it best...

I learned a very good lesson at age 16... drove up to a friends house to see a fight - someone was fighting with my friend - friend wasn't doing so good... I pulled a bat out of my trunk and yelled at the guy - he "did stop fighting my friend" walked over to me - took my bat - tossed it and cleaned my clock....

moral of the story - don't bluff - I Never expected the guy to come my way - at age 16 - I froze just long enough to get a great black eye... I thank god he tossed the bat or I would have really felt the pain...

harley66
03-18-2006, 10:05 PM
Same in CA....from page 31 of the California Gun Laws 2005

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.


I am not a lawyer and from what I understoon in NV - the difference between NV and CA - Key word I think they were talking about is "SURPRISE" Meaning just being surprised in your home.... Also was told in NV that home could be a motel room,,, camper,,,, RV,,, tent...


I got this from www.packing.org NV site... I think this covers what I was remembering... and please keep in mind,,, I am not a lawyer.. but this looks more "forgiving than CA" when it comes to protecting your home or family...


NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

[1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)

NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]


NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

[1911 C&P § 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL § 10080]—(NRS A 1993, 932)

FreedomIsNotFree
03-18-2006, 11:07 PM
Thanks, I think I covered that when I said in all caps "MAKE DAMN SURE YOU ARE RIGHT!"

Infact, your post is interperative advice not based on law, and given withought a licence to practice law. You reiterate the same point I have effectively made (that one need be CERTAIN they have hte right person and that a crime WAS committed.) then you go on to render an un-tennable opinion that PC is irrelivant.

You sound about as smart as the DOJ goons, and seem about as effective.

I was agreeing with you....no need to get your panties in a bunch.

And in terms of probable cause you can NOT place someone under citizens arrest with probable cause....weither it be a misdemeanor or a felony....the crime must have been committed in your presence.

artherd
03-18-2006, 11:35 PM
And in terms of probable cause you can NOT place someone under citizens arrest with probable cause....weither it be a misdemeanor or a felony....the crime must have been committed in your presence.

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=75412127319+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
CPC 837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-18-2006, 11:39 PM
Source: http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/citarr.htm

CA Penal Code 837. I stand corrected.

blkA4alb
03-18-2006, 11:44 PM
MAke sure no one is around.

Shoot him.

Place large stcik in his dead hand hand or next to him.

"I thought is was a weapon"

Works for LEOS.
how stupid are you? i mean really, when you do this go ahead and tell us, or wait you wont be able to since you'll be rooming with your new best friend. why did no one else make any comment on this????:eek: :confused:

grammaton76
03-19-2006, 12:35 AM
how stupid are you? i mean really, when you do this go ahead and tell us, or wait you wont be able to since you'll be rooming with your new best friend. why did no one else make any comment on this????:eek: :confused:

Personally, I didn't because I figured it was sarcasm / humor. I imagine that's why most other folks ignored it as well.

artherd
03-19-2006, 12:36 AM
CA Penal Code 837. I stand corrected.
No worries, there are over 30,000 firearm related laws alone in this state... Even the po-po (paid to do nothing but enforce 'em!) isn't expected to know them all anymore, let alone you and I.

It is important we know the law when attempting to do, well anything these days it seems.

1911_sfca
03-19-2006, 1:16 AM
A citizen of this state has virtually the same rights of self defense as well as powers of arrest as a LEO. The only real difference is a LEO may arrest, on probable cause, without a warrant, for a felony committed out of his presence. (PC 836)

Almost completely correct. (I belive LEO can also arrest on PC for misdomenors not committed in their presence as well.) I am actually relatively certin that upon PC, a citizen can effect an arrest on another for a FELONY only that they do not have personal direct knowlege of. (example: "That dude just robbed a bank!" )

I'm not sure exactly why powers of arrest are relevant to this thread, but here is a bit more detail/clarification.

LEOs have the authority to make warrantless arrests for:

whenever they have PC to believe the person has committed a misdemeanor or felony in their presence
when the person arrested has committed a felony not in the officer's presence
when they have PC to believe that the person has committed a felony, whether or not a felony has in fact been committed.
for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, by a juvenile
for a misdemeanor not committed in their presence, for the following crimes:
driving while under the influence
carrying a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place/street
violating a domestic violence restraining order, when responding to a call alleging same
committing assault or battery on a spouse, cohabitant, or parent of child
committing assault or battery on school property while school's in session
committing assault or battery against a working firefighter, EMT, or medic
carrying a concealed firearm at an airport.



Besides that list of exceptions, no arrest can be made for a misdemeanor not committed in one's presence.

A private person can make an arrest for:
felonies/misdemeanors committed in their presence
felonies not committed in their presence


Yes, these powers are similar, but not the same, as for LEOs. You must also state the authority under which you're making the arrest and for what.

Note that this list does not include private person's arrests based on PC for felonies not committed in their presence, whether or not the felony occurred. So LEOs have an additional shield of liability for false arrest if they have PC that a felony occurred, but one didn't actually occur. In Ben's example, if someone walks up to you and says "this guy robbed a bank, arrest him", and he didn't rob a bank, you're in a world of hurt if you make the arrest. It's also interesting to note that private persons can make warrantless entries to arrest, but only for felonies.

socalguns
03-19-2006, 11:09 AM
Happened to an employee of my old man (its dark outside, perp tryin to break into car in front of the house).
The employee tied-up the perp at gunpoint while
his wife called the cops.
This was on the sidewalk.
The first thing the cop did was empty the shotgun
while showing his annoyance that the guy brought it out.
The perp was threatning to kill the guy the whole time.

Patrick Aherne
03-19-2006, 11:26 AM
MAke sure no one is around.

Shoot him.

Place large stcik in his dead hand hand or next to him.

"I thought is was a weapon"

Works for LEOS.

One, this is stupid advice. Most crime labs and surely his family's attorney's experts will be able to re-construct the crime scene and determine YOU altered it. Never mind that one of your neighbors might have bought the $199 video security system at Costco. Have fun getting your rectum stretched in prison.

Two, for insulting honest Law Enforcement Officers everywhere, I dearly long for the days of the duel, when I could have taken you to task for your smear. Oh, if only duelling were still an accepted part of social discourse, the amount of dead trolls would make the internet a wonderful place.

Justang
03-19-2006, 11:46 AM
Everybody has a "right to life." There are only two times when a person loses that right to life. One is when the BG threatens your life or great bodily injury to you or somebody else. The second instance when you lose your right to life is when the state orders you to be executed.

If I happened to catch somebody breaking into my car, I'd probably point at them with my left hand, yell at them to stop, with my right hand on my gun (always in it's holster). I figure that way they know, or may think, I'm armed. Your average criminal isn't going to keep doing what their doing. Their going to run. Or, you get a whack-job that starts coming at you. At that point I draw my weapon and tell him to stop (because at that point I would feel a threat of great bodiliy injury). If it progressed to the point where I felt he was threatening my life, I might have to shoot him to stop him from hurting/killing me.

In California a bullet cannot retrieve property.

glen avon
03-19-2006, 11:49 AM
...Infact, your post is interperative advice not based on law, and given withought a licence to practice law. You reiterate the same point I have effectively made (that one need be CERTAIN they have hte right person and that a crime WAS committed.) then you go on to render an un-tennable opinion that PC is irrelivant.

You sound about as smart as the DOJ goons, and seem about as effective.

Helloooo, that's all you do in most of your posts, might I suggest you remember that "unlawful detainer" and "doctorine of legality" bombs you dropped? what makes it OK for you?

artherd
03-19-2006, 1:14 PM
Helloooo, that's all you do in most of your posts, might I suggest you remember that "unlawful detainer" and "doctorine of legality" bombs you dropped? what makes it OK for you?

You mean my correct use of Unlawful detainment (distinct from detainer) often phrased as UNLAWFUL DETENTION also.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/People_Randy1101.html
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/People/Bittner/002-Dentention.doc

"Doctorine of Legality" is the cornerstone of our common law based criminal system. Simply put "that which is not illegal, is not criminal." I learned about this in law school, you must have been sick that week? See also, Rule of Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

Who invited you again? Need I remind YOU about your gross conceptual mistakes that you later recanted surrounding Category 4 assault weapons that predicated your first posts on this board? Thanks for playing though.

glen avon
03-19-2006, 1:49 PM
You mean my correct use of Unlawful detainment (distinct from detainer) often phrased as UNLAWFUL DETENTION also.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/People_Randy1101.html
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/People/Bittner/002-Dentention.doc

uhhhh, no, you wrote unlawful detainer. anyways, a quick Google search shows that "unlawful detention" applies to people, not property. so you are still wrong.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=241721&postcount=130

[quoite]"Doctorine of Legality" is the cornerstone of our common law based criminal system. Simply put "that which is not illegal, is not criminal." I learned about this in law school, you must have been sick that week? See also, Rule of Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

in the discussions following your first misuse of the term http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=235447&postcount=17 you were shown to be incorrect and you just ran away. There is no "doctrine of legality" serving as a cornerstone of our law and you misunderstood what "doctrine of legality" meant. if you went to law school - which I highly doubt - please find some scholastic reference for "doctrine of legality" as it applies to law here in the US. Not just your recollection - but a cite, a quote, a reference.

Who invited you again?

who invited you?

Need I remind YOU about your gross conceptual mistakes that you later recanted surrounding Category 4 assault weapons that predicated your first posts on this board? Thanks for playing though.

yes, you do, I don't recall any such thing. I recall disagreeing with you, but that doesn't make me mistaken.

now, please confront your "doctorine of legality" issue, and don't ignore it like last time.

I say: there is no doctrine of legality as a cornerstone of the law in the US or CA.

I say: the doctrine of legality does not mean "that which is not illegal is legal."

because there is no such thing, there will be no citation to that effect. like there is no citation for the truth that there is no yogurt on mars. you may say there is, but you will have to back it up. the burden is on you as the proponent.

your quote to wikipedia does not refer to "doctorine of legality" or even "doctrine of legality." http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=235919&postcount=21

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=235959&postcount=25

and, just where do you say you went to law school?

Bling Bling 2.0
03-19-2006, 1:51 PM
In reading "How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail", there seems to be some contradicting laws concerning property protection. Surprise, surprise. I wanted to get a perspective.

Chap. 2 says you may carry an unconcealed, loaded weapon if you or YOUR PROPERTY is in immediate grave danger.

Lethal force IS NOT authorized to protect property, real (as in real estate) or otherwise. Lethal force can only be used to protect you or someone else.

OK. Understood.

My concern is in the following scenario. Person is in the process of stealing my car in my drive way or on the street in front of the house. Reality is, I don't want to shoot him/her (illegal anyway), or arrest them. I simply want them to go away:eek:

Is display of the gun to "convince" them to retreat considered brandishing?

Will the rules change if the car is not on my property but on a public street?

Is pointing the gun at them and demanding they stop considered assault?

I do understand that if they choose to ignore the gun, I am "stuck" with no recourse unless they attack me.

Thanks All!

If you run across this situation, in CA you have to give him some money, invite him in to see if he wants anything from your house and then make him a sandwich and try and get him to vote for a democrat. It's the law...

artherd
03-19-2006, 2:31 PM
1) You are a brand new calguns.net poster.
2) You refuse to divulge your name upon request.
3) You refuse to divulge your e-mail address upon request.
4) You profess to be an attorney, yet refuse to divulge your SBA number upon request.
5) You profess to be an attorney, yet refuse to divulge your office address or phone number upon request.

6) You have made several eggretious and material legal errors and attacks as part of your first posts here.

Let's review.

1) Ben Cannon has been a calguns member since version 1 of the forum. This will be lost on you but it means I've been here for many years since nearly the begining.

2) Ben Cannon posts his true and correct name in the signature of every message here.

3) Ben Cannon posts his e-mail address in the signature of every message here.

4) Ben Cannon, in every post on this board, reiterates that he is not an attorney and cannot make legal advice.

5) Ben Cannon has successfully imported one of if not the first off-list AR lowers into California since the year 2000. Between existing law (Harrott) and Ben's DOJ letter, he helped open the floodgates.

And YOU dare to question MY integrity?


you have no integrity at all. in the discussions following your first misuse of the term http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=235447&postcount=17 you were shown to be incorrect and you just ran away. There is no "doctrine of legality" serving as a cornerstone of our law and you misunderstood what "doctrine of legality" meant. if you went to law school - which I highly doubt - please find some scholastic reference for "doctrine of legality" as it applies to law here in the US. Not just your recollection - but a cite, a quote, a reference.
I say: there is no doctrine of legality as a cornerstone of the law in the US or CA.

I say: the doctrine of legality does not mean "that which is not illegal is legal."


Here you go.
http://wopared.parl.net/Senate/pubs/pops/pop39/c07.pdf
...through the common law. Today, it can be seen to resonate most clearly through the fundamental common law doctrine of legality and the right of access to justice.




who invited you?
Nice, refuse to answer the pertinant question at hand, and simply redirect it on the questioner. They teach you that first year?
I was 'invited' by person who posted this thread with a question on brandishing to protect property. He requested answers, I showed up and gave them.

You showed up looking for a fight, slow year?

yes, you do, I don't recall any such thing. I recall disagreeing with you, but that doesn't make me mistaken.

Actually, if I am right about an objective binary topic, then by definition you are wrong to disagree with me :P

Funny how selective your memory gets, remenber the pounding 10th ammendment, bill wiese, and others gave you when you first came here argueing for category 4?

glen avon
03-19-2006, 2:51 PM
1) You are a brand new calguns.net poster.
2) You refuse to divulge your name upon request.
3) You refuse to divulge your e-mail address upon request.

nobody requested those things

4) You profess to be an attorney

no I don't

6) You have made several eggretious and material legal errors and attacks as part of your first posts here.

what the F is eggretious?

Let's review.

1) Ben Cannon has been a calguns member since version 1 of the forum. This will be lost on you but it means I've been here for many years since nearly the begining.

you are proud of your internet rank? I don't even really consider mine. I'm not here to impress anybody. and who asked you when you signed up anyways? what does this have to do with anything?

2) Ben Cannon posts his true and correct name in the signature of every message here.

3) Ben Cannon posts his e-mail address in the signature of every message here.

so?

4) Ben Cannon, in every post on this board, reiterates that he is not an attorney and cannot make legal advice.

that doesn't seem to stop you.

5) Ben Cannon has successfully imported one of if not the first off-list AR lowers into California since the year 2000. Between existing law (Harrott) and Ben's DOJ letter, he helped open the floodgates.

And YOU dare to question MY integrity?

actually, integrity was a poorly chosen term so I edited it out while you were still typing. but it is still valid. you make BS legal argument mistakes, and refuse to own up to them. that is not the action of a person with integrity.

and yes, ben, I dare(!) to disagree with you and your ego! horrors! I DARE! what does your buying questionable lowers have to do with integrity? nothing.

Here you go.

that was somebody else, and still wrong. you cannot show that there is an accepted (outside of your own head) "doctrine of legality" that serves as a cornerstone of US or CA law, and you cannot show that the "doctrine of legality" means "that which is not illegal is legal." and neither can anybody else - in fact, Bill could find no reference to it!

Nice, refuse to answer the pertinant question at hand, and simply redirect it on the questioner. They teach you that first year?

no, first grade, it's called a "rhetorical question."

I was 'invited' by person who posted this thread with a question on brandishing to protect property. He requested answers, I showed up and gave them.

I was 'invited' by yet another legal falsehood on your part.

You showed up looking for a fight, slow year?

you flatter yourself. we don't fight. you get self-righteous and hysterical and I get mildly irritated.

Actually, if I am right about an objective binary topic, then by definition you are wrong to disagree with me :P

but you are wrong, so..

Funny how selective your memory gets, remenber the pounding 10th ammendment, bill wiese, and others gave you when you first came here argueing for category 4?

there was no such "pounding." nothing to remember. I never argued for a category 4. you are stuck in the mindset that anybody who doesn't agree with you must be on the wrong side of your argument. which is not true.

now how about that law school, seeing how you have nothing to hide.

and how about that "doctorine of legality"? you keep changing the subject or ignoring it. that is not an act of integrity. not at all.

Justang
03-19-2006, 2:59 PM
Enough with the lovers spat. Kiss and make up. Lets get back on topic. ;)
This is CalGuns, not some lowbrow gun forum. These posts are not CalGuns material.

HillBilly
03-19-2006, 9:04 PM
Everybody has a "right to life." There are only two times when a person loses that right to life. One is when the BG threatens your life or great bodily injury to you or somebody else. The second instance when you lose your right to life is when the state orders you to be executed.

If I happened to catch somebody breaking into my car, I'd probably point at them with my left hand, yell at them to stop, with my right hand on my gun (always in it's holster). I figure that way they know, or may think, I'm armed. Your average criminal isn't going to keep doing what their doing. Their going to run. Or, you get a whack-job that starts coming at you. At that point I draw my weapon and tell him to stop (because at that point I would feel a threat of great bodiliy injury). If it progressed to the point where I felt he was threatening my life, I might have to shoot him to stop him from hurting/killing me.

In California a bullet cannot retrieve property.


This is my basic thinking on the subject, as I see this "car theft" scenario being probably the most likely of all the scenarios involving drawing I ponder.

I don't feel like I HAVE to sit in my house, looking out the window, watching some kid steal my car. I will head out, and I will head out armed, because I DO fear for my life as soon as I turn that corner to meet him in my driveway. I will not draw (or point, as it is likely I will just keep the gun behind my back hidden) to protect my car, but will make it quite clear that he is to get the F$^K outta here immediately. I don't believe under this circumstance that ANY car thief will just passively continue to to hotwire the car, ignoring me. He will either head away from me (ie. down the street) or towards me.

One way lets him live another day...the other way lets him see if the 6 .357 bullets lodged in his body set off the metal detectors at the doorway to hell.

Justang
03-19-2006, 10:09 PM
I've been told not to cuss when in a confrontation involving firearms. It shows emotion. You want to stay calm and level headed, so if you do shoot somebody, you can prove in court you meant to do what you did.

harley66
03-20-2006, 7:01 AM
I've been told not to cuss when in a confrontation involving firearms. It shows emotion. You want to stay calm and level headed, so if you do shoot somebody, you can prove in court you meant to do what you did.

very good point - in todays world, our luck will be that someone has their video phone or home camera on us and what took you 3.6 seconds to conduct on your drive way - the courts will drag out and examine for 2 years.. again,,, good food for thougth... from everything I have read - if we use deadly force - we had better be able to show their was NO other choice available to us...

HillBilly
03-20-2006, 10:05 PM
That is a good point...putting it to practice in a situation like that is the hard part.

When it comes down to it, all of the technical details and legal angles are unimportant to me so long as my family is safe from the immediate threat. I will deal with the lawyer slime later if it comes to that, but I still feel home defense situations result in civil suits far less than we like to pretend. CCW in public is one thing, criminal threatening me in my home is another.

artherd
03-20-2006, 10:38 PM
<lotsa *****in>
Glen, I belive I have addressed your concerns, and as such this discussion is now over.

Once again I want to lock a thread because of my own posts, sigh. Ramon? I think this is about done here.

Justang
03-20-2006, 11:39 PM
That is a good point...putting it to practice in a situation like that is the hard part.

When it comes down to it, all of the technical details and legal angles are unimportant to me so long as my family is safe from the immediate threat. I will deal with the lawyer slime later if it comes to that, but I still feel home defense situations result in civil suits far less than we like to pretend. CCW in public is one thing, criminal threatening me in my home is another.

If you shoot somebody, they will most likely sue you.
If you kill somebody (even in self defense), they're family will sue you.
I figure if I ever have to shoot somebody, I can look forward to being sued by them or their family. cause and effect

And when it court, remember... Liars lose court cases.

artherd
03-21-2006, 2:08 AM
If you shoot somebody, they will most likely sue you.
If you kill somebody (even in self defense), they're family will sue you.
I figure if I ever have to shoot somebody, I can look forward to being sued by them or their family. cause and effect

And when it court, remember... Liars lose court cases.

I don't think the statistics would support your conclusion.


Not saying it's not a distinct possability, but to go so far as a foregone conclusion? I think not.

Anyone have the percentage of SD (so criminal charges dropped/not brought) shootings in CA that result in a civil suit?

Justang
03-21-2006, 7:32 AM
I don't think the statistics would support your conclusion.


Not saying it's not a distinct possability, but to go so far as a foregone conclusion? I think not.

Anyone have the percentage of SD (so criminal charges dropped/not brought) shootings in CA that result in a civil suit?

I would bet dollars to pesos that over 75% of SD shootings were followed by a civil suit.

I have no facts to back this up, but in this sue happy world it's pretty much a given. People sue for a lot less. Look at all the murder cases in the media that are followed by a wrongful death civil suit.

All I'm saying is pull the trigger, and expect to be sued by somebody. If you're not, thank God.

glen avon
03-21-2006, 8:20 AM
Glen, I belive I have addressed your concerns.

you have not. instead, you ignore questions that you don't want to, or cannot, answer. then you change the subject.

If you need, I will reiterate the tasks I posed to you which you now shirk.

One is the "doctorine of legality." you referred to a post which does not support your initial premise.

another is your "unlawful detainer" statement, which has *nothing* to do with seized receivers. you dishonestly assert that you wrote "unlawful detention," which is even *less* correct. then, instead of admitting that those concepts, which apply to evicting people from real propoerty and wrongful detaining of persons by the government, and have *absolutely nothing* to do with the issue of DOJ's seizure of lower receivers, you change the subject.

please address the "doctorine of legality" as a cornerstone of US or California law with legal citations. give it up, or back it up. the other thread did not resolve the issue. some posters found a very loose connection between "doctrine of legality" and "rule of law," but the rule of law does not stand for what you assert the "doctorine of legality" stands for. referring to that thrread does not address the fact that you said "doctorine of legality" means "that which is not illegal is legal."

back your argument up, or give it up.

please address the "unlawful detainer" and "unlawful detention" with the same.

and - since you are so very candid with your personal information, please be so kind you tell us which law school you attended. remember - you said that you did.

this argument may be over as far as you are concerned, but talking smack and not backing it up is *not* an act of integrity.

asking Ramon to lock the thread after your last post so you can't explain yourself is the ethical equivalent of running to your mother's skirt.

obviously Ramon has the discretion to lock this thread, but I hope he leaves it open long enough for you to respond substantively.

QuickOnTheDraw
03-21-2006, 10:26 AM
wow this is turning into a soap opera, enough already!

phish
03-21-2006, 10:35 AM
no I don't


Okay, I'll ask direct: Are you a lawyer?

glen avon
03-21-2006, 11:02 AM
my education and employment are personal matters and I prefer not to divulge them. I have a strong sense of privacy.

QuickOnTheDraw
03-21-2006, 11:30 AM
you didn't answer the question...are you lawyer?

glen avon
03-21-2006, 12:29 PM
I will not answer that question. it is not germane to this argument. artherd wrote thhat I claimed I was, and I responded that I did not.

would it make a difference to you if I said that I was? if I said that I was not?

Jeff Rambo
03-21-2006, 12:53 PM
This thread has gone in a different direction than intended, that is why it is being closed. However, in light of this thread I would like to remind you all that Calguns is not about one-sided discussions and opinions that follow only one thought process. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion here on Calguns as long as it does not advocate doing anything illegal or cross the extreme lines of racism, biogtry, hatred, etc.

Furthermore, I have exchanged private messages with "glen avon," and I can assure those of you who requested that he be banned that he is not a "troll." He is someone that you should be thankful is taking his time to present opposing views with regards to various topics and taking the time to correct much of the erroneous information posted with regards to law. I will leave it at that.