Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES > Ammo and Reloading
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Ammo and Reloading Factory Ammunition, Reloading, Components, Load Data and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:34 AM
CCRBUM CCRBUM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 475
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Unhappy 12ga pepper rounds

hey guys with our countries economy in the poop tank and California's even further down AND Sac county doing cut backs with the police I'm looking for a good "less than lethal" set up. Don't get me wrong I've got a .357 Magnum as my primary home defense but with more and more junk about people defending themselves and getting arrested for it, it leaves me a little concerned. I don't want to put my family in a position where I can no longer take care of them (in jail). So I'm trying to track down some 12ga pepper rounds to keep as a secondary method in the event of a brake in and the guy on the other end does not have a gun. I have to be careful too due to living in an apartment complex so that is why I'm thinking the pepper rounds would work well enough to slow them down and allow me to take control of the situation. If push comes to shove though I have no problem putting them down with the .357... I'm just trying to be smart about this! So any idea of where I can pick some up or does anyone have some around Sac that I can buy some off of you? Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:46 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 44,082
iTrader: 133 / 100%
Default

I would STONGLY advise you against using a "less than lethal round" against a BG! It could cause many more legal problems for you than it would solve. Chances are that you will end up in jail for a longer period of time too!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:09 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Wrong.

If a BG forcibly breaks into your house, the Penal Code allows you to use deadly force period. You will not go to jail.

If, however, you elect to engage a BG elsewhere, a can of OC or a taser is alot more practical than 12 GA pepper rounds.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:11 AM
wildcard's Avatar
wildcard wildcard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Dude.. the moment you pick up that 12 gauge and fire.. it doesn't matter what projectile comes out of it. Let me just say that when the BG recovers from the pepper round with a blind eye or something, he'll be telling the jury about how he was just coming over for a cup of sugar and posed no threat. The family you were trying to protect will be working to pay his settlement.

Either use use some real bullets or nothing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:12 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:18 AM
oldschool88's Avatar
oldschool88 oldschool88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 788
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

Ya, dont' use those. You will most likely be the one in trouble with the law. If you weren't in enough danger to use lethal force than you weren't in enough danger to fire a firearm at a person. That is the way they will see it.

If you have a clearly unarmed intruder you can just hold him at gun point untill the cops arrive. If he runs you send the cops his way. If he stays you let the cops take him. And if he attacks you can defend yourself.

Plus having a first round less lethal puts you at risk. If he pulls a gun while you are drawn down with a less lethal he has the advantage. There are too many ways for this to go wrong. If you really want you can get a tazer or something like that but I would just stick with the basics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:19 AM
CSACANNONEER's Avatar
CSACANNONEER CSACANNONEER is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks
Posts: 44,082
iTrader: 133 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Wrong.
I'm not understnding why you keep posting "Wrong" after posts which seem to be agreeing with your idea of using deadly force as opposed to "less than lethal ammo in a firearm. It seems to me that we agree that the only way to go when using a firearm for SD is to use "normal ammo" ie. deadly force. Please explain what you mean by "Wrong".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:21 AM
Casual_Shooter's Avatar
Casual_Shooter Casual_Shooter is offline
Ban Hammer Avoidance Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Did you notice how far over I've moved this part of my info? You should try it, it's fun.
Posts: 11,733
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

It's sad that we have to worry about whether or not to use lethal means of protecting ourselves in our homes.
__________________
Guns, dogs and home alarms. Opponents are all of a sudden advocates once their personal space is violated.

"Those who cannot remember the posts are condemned to repeat them"

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone used a cliché

Why is it all the funny stuff happens to comedians?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:28 AM
wildcard's Avatar
wildcard wildcard is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.
Lawsuits are civil.
Juries are people and can be made to believe anything. Heck, OJ Simpson is innocent LOL.
And welcome to California. BG needs to pose a threat of violence. Without going into the legal issues, you can not simply shoot a person trespassing into your home unless you don't mind jail.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-29-2009, 2:24 PM
felixthecat1's Avatar
felixthecat1 felixthecat1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA (562)
Posts: 428
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual_Shooter View Post
It's sad that we have to worry about whether or not to use lethal means of protecting ourselves in our homes.
+1
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-29-2009, 2:59 PM
kalguns's Avatar
kalguns kalguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: The High Ground
Posts: 609
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

You shoot someone you WILL get sued no matter what the circumstance.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by skateboarder74 View Post
"It is better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ---Clarence Worley ...
"License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit -- ever. They're like the Viet Cong. Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote." --Carl Spackler--
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:12 PM
CCRBUM CCRBUM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 475
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I appreciate all the info guys. It sounds to me like i need to just stick with the .357 and hope I don't have to use it. I have a hard time living out here and dealing with the politics... where I come from back east the farmers use to keep punk kids off their property with rock salt loaded into a 12 ga and if you went to the police they would tell you that you got what you deserve haha. So seeing how you can get in more trouble then the BG for protecting yourself is crazy to me. But thanks for the info guys! I hope we can all avoid having to be put in a position of compromise but if we are may justice be on our side!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:22 PM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcard View Post
Lawsuits are civil.
Juries are people and can be made to believe anything. Heck, OJ Simpson is innocent LOL.
And welcome to California. BG needs to pose a threat of violence. Without going into the legal issues, you can not simply shoot a person trespassing into your home unless you don't mind jail.
Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:25 PM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalguns View Post
You shoot someone you WILL get sued no matter what the circumstance.
So? Ever hard of a summary judgment?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:41 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,942
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???
Ever heard of Bernard Goetz?
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-29-2009, 8:41 PM
mattman's Avatar
mattman mattman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 484
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Have lethal force at the ready. Just use you escalation of force rules SHOUT, SHOW (YOU WEAPON), SHOVE, SHOOT and you will be fine.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:14 PM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Ever heard of Bernard Goetz?
In NY, you are mandated to retreat. NY does not have PC 198.5. Goetz used excessive force.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:17 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,942
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Goetz used excessive force.
Not according to the jury (in the criminal trial). Nor was that the opinion of the jury in the civil trial.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-29-2009, 9:56 PM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Shooting someone while they are cowering on the ground is excessive force.

Why did he sustain a civil judgment, then?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2009, 10:17 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,942
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Goetz was convicted of illegally carrying a gun.

Goetz never shot anyone "cowering on the ground". Cabey was sitting in a seat, where he had fallen after Goetz shot at him the first time.

Goetz lost the civil judgment because he was "reckless and intentionally inflicted emotional distress" on Cabey who was paralyzed due to the shooting. Cabey also had (arguably) the best two civil rights attorneys in the country. Cabey was awarded $43 million. So far, Goetz has paid nothing.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-30-2009, 7:50 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Goetz never shot anyone "cowering on the ground". Cabey was sitting in a seat, where he had fallen after Goetz shot at him the first time.

What's the difference in terms of excessive force? Sitting down, lying on the ground, whatever. Did not the civil jury find him liable due to his decision to fire again coupled with his stupid comment?

And What does this have to do with home defense? Does the OP plan on carrying his 12 GA on the train?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-30-2009, 10:41 PM
1mean76's Avatar
1mean76 1mean76 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lodi
Posts: 390
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

my dad always told me if someone comes into the house and is not welcome you shoot to kill cuz dead men tell no lies
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-30-2009, 11:19 PM
weezil_boi's Avatar
weezil_boi weezil_boi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,305
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

To the OP...

Its very nice of you to have such concern for an intruder. My own hierarchy is perhaps more harsh, but I am quite comfortable with it.

I am concerned with ( in this particular order ):

1. The safety of my family - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force

2. The safety of myself - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force

3. The safety of my neighbors and possible bystanders - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using any means - including lethal force


4. The legal consequences of my actions - with priority going to immediately stopping a threat using legal and responsible methods - including the appropriate application of force, even lethal force

5. The safety and well being of the intruder- if at all possile, stopping the immediate threat without lethal force. He will have no idea whats in your shotgun... so if wont stop for a 12 gauge, he desrves whatever I have in the tube.

In my world, theres just no room for bean bags or pepper in shotguns.

But I hope I'll never have to prove it
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-01-2009, 7:36 AM
CCRBUM CCRBUM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 475
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

weezil_boi - Don't get my wrong my primary concern is for my family. I just want to make sure I go about it the best and smartest way possible . I know that in the heat of the moment I'm not going to negotiate with myself on the best tactic so I figure it's better to work it all out and have it in place now haha
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:29 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,151
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
I would STONGLY advise you against using a "less than lethal round" against a BG!
What he said.

If you find yourself in a situation where you or others' lives are in danger, you have a moral obligation to intercede with enough force to halt the attack and regain control. Less-than-lethal cartridges are for crowd control; unless you find yourself with a Cal Berkeley protest against berber carpets in your living room, leave the pepper and rubber buck at the store.

A .357, while potent and unquestionably devastating, gives me pause as a HD weapon. I'd prefer to have a better level of comfort with regards to where any stray bullets may end up.

Take all this with a grain of salt, but here are some interesting shotgun and HD/load-related articles.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm (testing rock salt)
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs10.htm (shotgun HD loads)
http://www.chuckhawks.com/ammo_by_anonymous.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/home_defense_shotgun_ammo.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm (shotgun)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot14.htm (rifles, shotguns, walls)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot42.htm (precision shooting buckshot)
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu91.htm (re buckshot)
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_De..._FAQ/index.htm
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 07-01-2009 at 10:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:52 AM
ZakAttackMan ZakAttackMan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 519
iTrader: 80 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1mean76 View Post
my dad always told me if someone comes into the house and is not welcome you shoot to kill cuz dead men tell no lies

If ever you have to use a firearm you dont want anything coming back at you
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-01-2009, 12:40 PM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

get some 38sp snake shot for the 357, first two rounds snake shot, if that does not stop them then the 4 rounds of 357 mag hp will do the trick. Also the guys at frontsight say you never want to project the intent to kill, just stop, goes over in court much better than execution. Best to get you're info from professional self defense trainers.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-01-2009, 2:16 PM
Redhawker Redhawker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Tell me, how will someone prevail in civil court when the shooting was justifiable on its face???
If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-01-2009, 2:18 PM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawker View Post
If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.
In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-01-2009, 4:15 PM
Beelzy's Avatar
Beelzy Beelzy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central,Ca
Posts: 8,990
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highpowermatch View Post
In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.

True that!

To the OP: if you are going to pull the trigger on someone, do it right.
Using less than lethal methods in this day and age could be construed as
torture or cruel and unusual punishment.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-01-2009, 4:16 PM
CCRBUM CCRBUM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 475
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

geeze... what a messed up system we live in . good idea with snake shots! I've never given any though to that. I do plan on picking up a box of hydro shock for it though to keep at the ready... right now I just have half jacket hollow point. any advice on a nice round to use? I know federal premium hydro shock is nice but other than that I'm not sure. my apartment only has two walls that are adjacent another apartment. the other way is into a hall with a stone wall on the other side and the 4th leads out to the parking lot and a canal. Wall 3 and 4 are also the only potential entrances, mainly 3 due to being on the 3rd floor and it being the front door.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-01-2009, 4:22 PM
1mean76's Avatar
1mean76 1mean76 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lodi
Posts: 390
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZakAttackMan View Post

If ever you have to use a firearm you dont want anything coming back at you
its about time someone agrees with me lol
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-01-2009, 9:49 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,151
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highpowermatch View Post
get some 38sp snake shot for the 357, first two rounds snake shot, if that does not stop them then the 4 rounds of 357 mag hp will do the trick. Also the guys at frontsight say you never want to project the intent to kill, just stop, goes over in court much better than execution. Best to get you're info from professional self defense trainers.
Sorry, if the threat is enough to warrant taking a shot it's enough to warrant a shot capable of immediately ending the encounter. I don't want to find out if the BG is going to stop after my 1-2 rounds of birdshot pissed him (them) off/scared him(them) into a gunfight. Further, we're talking multiple on-target hits with a handgun under duress- not a reasonable expectation from the general population.

Let's be clear, we're not discussing execution here. If you take a life after the threat of harm has been mitigated you are very likely going to jail.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-02-2009, 7:40 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redhawker View Post
If the shooting was criminally justified, (meaning the local law enforcement / DA didn't file charges because the shooting was justified), then there is no criminal trial. The BG (or his surviving relatives) will sue anyway, because they can sue for any reason and they only have to prove you were 51% in the wrong to win. The reason you could very well loose a civil trial is because the case is heard by a jury comprised of people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury service.
If the law presumes you are in fear of your life, then you will prevail in both a criminal and a civil action.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-02-2009, 7:43 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highpowermatch View Post
In front sight training they suggest calling the ambulance before the cops if you shoot a intruder so when it goes to civil court it shows you're intent was to stop the intruder from harming you and you're loved ones not to execute the perp.
and give him CPR too...

I once took a class taught by a veteran LAPD detective who said the best 9mm load for self defense was a "183gr. JHP"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-02-2009, 8:40 AM
highpowermatch's Avatar
highpowermatch highpowermatch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Mendocino County
Posts: 2,433
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
and give him CPR too...

I once took a class taught by a veteran LAPD detective who said the best 9mm load for self defense was a "183gr. JHP"
That will do the trick, all they were saying is that in civil court the better of a person you look the less chance that you will loose everything. I am pretty sure I wouldn't go as far as the CPR...lol
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-02-2009, 12:14 PM
macadamizer macadamizer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 967
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
If the law presumes you are in fear of your life, then you will prevail in both a criminal and a civil action.
Wrong.

The presumption of fear simply shifts the burden of proof. Without the presumption, the shooter has to prove they were in fear of their life; with the presumption, the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was not in fear of their life.

The presumption doesn't create an automatic win; it just means that the burden of proof for the defense shifts to the prosecution. You can still be found liable for the shooting, even in your own house, if the prosecutor has evidence that proves that you had no reason to fear for your life.

EDIT: Forgot this part. If there is no criminal trial, then there will still be a civil trial, and the shooter will have to prove that the shoot was a good shoot -- if he can do that, then there will be no civil liability. There could be other reasons other than a "good shoot" that the criminal case didn't go to trial. So, one might draw an inference that the shoot was good because there was no criminal trial, but it doesn't automatically cut off civil liability. Now, if there is a criminal trial, and the shoot is found to be a good shoot in court, that will cut off civil liability.

Last edited by macadamizer; 07-02-2009 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-03-2009, 8:29 AM
J-cat J-cat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IE
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macadamizer View Post
Wrong.

The presumption of fear simply shifts the burden of proof. Without the presumption, the shooter has to prove they were in fear of their life; with the presumption, the prosecution has to prove that the shooter was not in fear of their life.

The presumption doesn't create an automatic win; it just means that the burden of proof for the defense shifts to the prosecution. You can still be found liable for the shooting, even in your own house, if the prosecutor has evidence that proves that you had no reason to fear for your life.

EDIT: Forgot this part. If there is no criminal trial, then there will still be a civil trial, and the shooter will have to prove that the shoot was a good shoot -- if he can do that, then there will be no civil liability. There could be other reasons other than a "good shoot" that the criminal case didn't go to trial. So, one might draw an inference that the shoot was good because there was no criminal trial, but it doesn't automatically cut off civil liability. Now, if there is a criminal trial, and the shoot is found to be a good shoot in court, that will cut off civil liability.
Here's the statute:

Quote:
198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
Where does it say the presumption is rebuttable?
So I cap a dude who broke into my house. I cap him front center of mass with a pepper round. Please articulate how HE will prevail in a civil suit.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2009, 8:53 AM
macadamizer macadamizer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 967
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Here's the statute:



Where does it say the presumption is rebuttable?
So I cap a dude who broke into my house. I cap him front center of mass with a pepper round. Please articulate how HE will prevail in a civil suit.
All presumptions are rebuttable. A presumption is just that, a presumption. Not an absolute. If the statute granted absolute carte blanche to take out an intruder in your house, it would say so. It doesn't. The statute gives you the benefit of the doubt, so it forces the prosecution to prove that you weren't reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm -- which might be hard to prove in a lot of cases.

As far as how he might prevail, hard to say. I don't have Witkin in front of me here. But if he were able to prove that you were not in fear of death or great bodily harm, then you shooting him with a pepper round -- or any round, lethal, non-lethal or otherwise (if there is such a thing!) -- is assault with a deadly weapon, and presumably he could prevail in a civil suit for damages. How might he prove that? Maybe evidence that he wasn't armed, along with other evidence (testimony from an accomplice or other witness, video or audio recordings, something like that) that would show that a reasonable homeowner would have known that he wasn't armed, wasn't threatening, maybe retreating or surrendering. That would likely be sufficient to overcome the presumption and make it a bad shoot for which the BG could recover civil damages.

The presumption in 198.5 is pretty good protection for homeowners, but it doesn't mean that every shoot in defense of your house is a good shoot. There must be evidence to the contrary, but if there is evidence, it can rebut the presumption.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-03-2009, 8:59 AM
Blue's Avatar
Blue Blue is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose, Mexifornia
Posts: 8,053
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-cat View Post
Wrong.

The Penal Code presumes that when a BG forcibly breaks into your house, he is not after a cup of sugar.
Until the BG survives, and lawyers up and sues your ***.
__________________
Quote:
Lord, make my hand fast and accurate.
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
than those who would seek to destroy me.
Grant me victory over my foes and those who wish to do harm to me and mine.
Let not my last thought be 'If I only had my gun."
And Lord, if today is truly the day you call me home, let me die in an empty pile of brass.
http://www.huntfishadventures.com/images/nra.gif
NRA Member
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy