CA home defense laws?

[jpkotor]

Whats the deal in CA with defining home defense? I've heard stories about people shooting a criminal in their home and being sued by the criminal (successfully). Is that really the case in CA? In what situations is it lawful to use deadly force as defense? Or for that matter any force.

[Rivers]

What a coincidence! I sent these emails to my just-sworn-in legislators with a real example of CA laws-gone-wrong.
Here's my email should anyone else wish to prompt their own legislators to act on this:

Dear Assemblyman,

First, congratulations on your second term. FWIW, I helped.

Tthere are a number of issues in CA that need attention, and won't require busting an already broken state budget to enact.

An example: Castle Doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

For a clear example of why it's needed in CA, read this link: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.d...WS02/811110324

Summary: Man is aware of domestic issues with female neighbor and her ex-boyfriend. He hears screams, grabs his gun, investigates. He sees her front door broken in and ex-boyfriend beating her with a pistol. Neighbor man shouts warning to stop, ex-boyfriend shoots neighbor man in the foot. Neighbor man returns fire, sending ex-bf to hospital in serious condition. Police state no charges likely to be filed against the Good Samaritan.

Problem: Now the Good Samaritan, who justifiably came to the aid of his neighbor, is vulnerable to being sued in civil court by either the bad guy or, if the bad guy dies, his family! Is this fair? Absolutely not. But he can count on getting sued for doing the right thing.

Solution: California already has a very limited version of the Castle Doctrine. You can defend yourself and family and property inside your home if you feel your life is threatened AND you have no means to escape. Regardless, this would not relieve anyone in CA from any civil liability in a justified self-defense action. Nor would it apply in any area outside of your own home. As the economic situation likely worsens, assaults, robberies and other violent crimes will likely increase. Not fixing this weakness continues to unnecessarily keep the good people of CA on the defensive. The Castle Doctrine should include any area where you have a legal right to be (including but not limited to your home, car, motorhome, business, etc.) and not permit any civil liability in any justified-defense action.

More Castle Doctrine information (or just do a Google search for a huge amount of reference material from over 20 states with this already enacted. WA and OH passed it this year, and Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wyoming are considering legislation this year.)

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Again, congratulations on your membership in the CA Legislature. If I can be of further assistance, or you're interested in other suggestions, please feel free to contact me.

[REDHORSE]

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

Protecting One’s Home
NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide.

Defense of Property
The lawful occupant of real property has the right to request a trespasser to leave the premises. If the trespasser does not do so within a reasonable time, the occupant may use force to eject the trespasser.

The amount of force that may be used to eject a trespasser is limited to that which a reasonable person would believe to be necessary under the same or similar circumstances.

Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense

The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used.

The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another. However, if such person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any other person being assaulted.

[Rivers]

Good info, spells out the criminal aspects. By omission, it also says that should one partake in any aspect of abiding by this law, one will likely find one's backside engaged with numerous professionals in the legal community. Congratulations, you're being sued!

[Beelzy]

Very true about being sued.

One may be able to win their case from a criminal standpoint, but the civil
aspects are what get you.

Just like a fist fight, you win but get sued for the teeth you knocked out.

[Ironchef]

Thanks for that Redhorse, I was about to question the OP's statement:
You can defend yourself and family and property inside your home if you feel your life is threatened AND you have no means to escape. (However, you do have the DUTY to attempt to flee.)

..because I was under the impression there was no legal requirement to flee or attempt to within your home (retreat).

Interesting in that segment that says if you pick a fight, then start losing and retreat, you can then use lethal force to defend! So if you are carrying a gun concealed, and pick a fight with someone who pulls a knife, then you can present and shoot once you say "no please, don't stab me..." And of course you'd lose that CCW for picking the fight if it's found out you picked the fight.

[Josh3239]

Whats the deal in CA with defining home defense? I've heard stories about people shooting a criminal in their home and being sued by the criminal (successfully). Is that really the case in CA? In what situations is it lawful to use deadly force as defense? Or for that matter any force.

Criminal and civil lawsuits are two very different things. In a civil lawsuit, yes you can risk getting sued for pretty much anything, doesn't mean the plaintiff is going to win.

Look at OJ's murder trial, criminally he was found innocent but civily he was found responsible. While he avoided prison for the criminal charge, civily he owed the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman millions of dollars.

[nick]

Interesting in that segment that says if you pick a fight, then start losing and retreat, you can then use lethal force to defend! So if you are carrying a gun concealed, and pick a fight with someone who pulls a knife, then you can present and shoot once you say "no please, don't stab me..." And of course you'd lose that CCW for picking the fight if it's found out you picked the fight.

Do it Colorado way - "he was coming right at me!"

[Captain Evilstomper]

this state is so screwed up. why do criminals have more rights here than law-abiding citizens?
seriously WTF?
can we start a political party of our own?
the 'common sense' party? there seems to be a dearth of that in this state.
how can we as citizens change things like this? i really want to know.

[jpkotor]

this state is so screwed up. why do criminals have more rights here than law-abiding citizens?
seriously WTF?
can we start a political party of our own?
the 'common sense' party? there seems to be a dearth of that in this state.
how can we as citizens change things like this? i really want to know.

by means of post #2, writing letters to lawmakers/legislature. but in a state like this i dont think it will do much because of the overwhelming liberal constituency. theres too many people with the "people have no use for guns" and "just call the police" mentality.

it reminds me of the argument I had with my roommate last night over gun ownership and self defense. we're both in college and long from heading our own families, but i was asking him if he would ever own a gun. went something like this...

me: so you're never going to own a gun?
roomie: never
me: why?
roomie: i dont see any benefit in owning a gun
me: what about self defense, what if you're attacked
roomie: they can take whatever they want, if i pull out a gun they will just shoot me first
me: not if you know how to use one. what about protecting your home?
roomie: i'll have an alarm and call the police
me: and wait 30 minutes while your family is in danger?
roomie: well what if something goes wrong while i'm using the gun? like i drop it or miss, now the criminal is pissed and kills me
me: thats why you practice so that stuff doesn't happen.
roomie: well i'm not going to. theres no point in people owning guns.
me: so someone breaks into your house to commit a crime and you just wont be able to do anything about it
roomie: i'll just let them have what they want and leave, its not worth ending a life.
me: they want to rape your daughter
roomie: [speechless]

he walked away and came back a few minutes later arguing he wouldn't shoot at someone who was raping his daughter anyway for risk of shooting his daughter. i couldn't convince him that a gun is a good enough deterrent that the criminal isn't likely to continue the act if a gun is being pointed at him. couldn't get through, i think his liberalism caused a lesion in the part of his brain that would process that sort of information (logical information)

[nick]

Funny enough though is that where such people are concerned, it's ok when a policeman uses the gun to stop a crime, but not when they use it to do the same.

Hmm, now that I said it, are they ok with police using guns to stop crimes?

[rrr70]

So, he would be just siting there watchin somebody raping his kid.
The amount of retards in this world is scary.

[nick]

this state is so screwed up. why do criminals have more rights here than law-abiding citizens?
seriously WTF?
can we start a political party of our own?
the 'common sense' party? there seems to be a dearth of that in this state.
how can we as citizens change things like this? i really want to know.

STarting a common sense party, both in this state and nationwide, isn't a bad idea. It never is, the question is how well it'll fare. Initially, not too well, since even people who agree with what it stands for will vote for "the lesser evil" because "it has a chance".

However, with more and more people becoming disappointed in both parties and the two-party system in general, you never know.

I've been considering starting such a party for a while, may even try it in a few years, unless someone beats me to it. And it doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be only about guns. There's a general lack of common sense in pretty much anything you look at, and it needs fixing.

[jpkotor]

Hmm, now that I said it, are they ok with police using guns to stop crimes?

He has actually hinted that in japan cops dont have guns blah blah so I think not. I have other liberal friends who have openly said not even cops should have guns and there should be a total ban.

Law abiding citizens will follow the rule and not have guns. Cops won't have guns because they are likewise law abiding. And criminals, in all their respect for gun laws will also not have... oh no. They don't care. So it will be a society run by criminals...

OMFG no wonder they voted for obama. the easiest way to achieve a society run by criminals is to put one at the top!

[Riodog]

So far all I read in this thread is FUD.

Instead of writing 2 pages I'll just say that if you shoot and kill the a**hole then the first words out of your mouth better be "I was in fear for my life and/or the life of said victim", if defending someone else. If the killing was other wise 'justified' then it doesn't matter that you were either on your own property, carrying without a permit or if it was the 6th Sunday in the month. Just be ready to prove whatever you alleged.
Rio