...

[duckman1]

Beat me to it!

[Den60]

thanks for the input.

1. if i was alone in the house and saw an intruder, yes i would call PD first. however it might not be like that sometimes, what happens if my daughter is playing in the side or the back yard or even in the front yard at the time?

2. in regards to engagement, my point is when during a face to face confrontation with an intruder and after i repeatedly asked to see his hands and he DOES NOT comply, what am I suppose to do then? as said, i have to watch his hands carefully and expecting the worst.

a lot of you think i'm walking out of my house with the gun out ready to kill but its further from that.

i'll write again . . .

1. intruder jumps fence onto private property
2. i come out to ask "can i help you sir" and "can i see your hands for safety"
3. at the same time i have my hand on the holster
4. what happens if he DOES NOT COMPLY to my commands REPEATEDLY and i can't see his hands.
5. what am i supposed to do next?????

my opinion is at that point i have no choice to expect the worst. worst meaning he might have a weapon and could possibly use on me.

i'm seeking input on #5 above ^^

You are changing the argument saying now that your daughter is in the yard. Of course you can defend your daughter. Previously you left your daughter out.

You need to answer question 4 and 5 yourself. Are you going to draw and shoot a guy who doesn't comply with your "orders?" Are you willing to accept the consequences of your actions, especially if the guy is not armed?

Personally, given your initial scenario (no wife, son, daughter, friend at risk) I would stand at my door and give myself plenty of time/room to retreat inside rather than walk out and confront with my hand on my firearm. From that position I would then ask the guy what he is doing.If at that point the guy breaks into my house I won't have to worry about drawing my weapon, it will already be in my hand. I won't have one bit of hesitation in pulling the trigger, nor will I have any hesitation in taking his life. In your scenario you are making the choice to make if a "face to face" confrontation. You are saying now, under calm conditions, that you "expect the worst." Now think about being in that situation where you have your hand on your weapon which is likely to be viewed as an aggressive act by the other person. Your adrenaline is pumping, you are fearful (don't be macho here and say you won't be), you find comfort and power knowing you have your firearm. Now the guy turns towards you and says "What are you gonna do, shoot me?" So, will you? If you do you really better hope the guy has a firearm because if he doesn't you will be going away for a long time, his family will sue you for all you have, your wife and daughter will have to fend for themselves in order to stay out of poverty. At that point you will have plenty of time to reflect on what you could have done differently that may have led to a different outcome.

Officers are trained to deescalate situations like that and they try very hard to make sure that their firearm is used only as a last resort. The first thing they will do is ask for backup if they don't have it already. Having a second person, a partner, there increases their options. You are talking about putting yourself and yourself alone in a position where using your firearm becomes your only resort if the guy doesn't do exactly what you want him to do and people can be very unpredictable. All this because the guy is in your front yard uninvited.

[IVC]

The guy refuses to take his hand out of your pocket and starts to be confrontational...

Funny slip - you shouldn't be hugging strangers in your back yard...

If you shoot him you have to hope he had a gun in his pocket to have any chance of a defense because you had the option in the first place to retreat inside your home and call police.

CA is *not* "duty to retreat" state, so this is incorrect.

CA is also not a "stand your ground" state, so what and how happens in self defense is a bit more complicated. Generally, if you are in fear of immediate death or grave bodily injury you are justified in using deadly force. The biggest mistake one can do is to discuss the details of an incident without an attorney. The "anything you say *will* be used against you" means exactly what it says - if the DA decides to file charges, his job is to convict you, not to seek the truth.

Then, there are *criminal* and *civil* courts.

[IVC]

Are you willing to accept the consequences of your actions, especially if the guy is not armed?

While I generally agree with your post about deescalation, it's also important to know what the legal standard is.

Being (or not being) armed does *not* appear in the self defense statutes in CA.

For example, if the guy was armed, yet you calmly claimed to the responding officer that you "wanted to teach him a lesson" you'll be in infinitely more trouble than if the guy wasn't armed and you say that you were in fear for your life.

[IVC]

2. in regards to engagement, my point is when during a face to face confrontation with an intruder and after i repeatedly asked to see his hands and he DOES NOT comply, what am I suppose to do then? as said, i have to watch his hands carefully and expecting the worst.

There is a big difference between what is legal to do, what is prudent to do and what your personal comfort level is.

Understanding the "legal minimum" is a good first step. If you are going to use a firearm for self defense you absolutely must know what the rules of engagement are. Beyond that, as some other posters pointed out, you have to decide what makes the most sense for you personally.

If I were in your place (this is personal), I would consider any advance towards me a threat and would consider it a justification to shoot. However, I would also retreat to the house (also personal) and *not shoot* if at all possible. The deadly force (to me) is only when I really run out of options, not when my ego gets in the way of exercising options.

With that said, I own a property in the wine country where the rules of engagement are quite different given that it's isolated and that anyone who intentionally jumps the fence had to first walk quite a bit to get to the fence...

[Den60]

Funny slip - you shouldn't be hugging strangers in your back yard...



CA is *not* "duty to retreat" state, so this is incorrect.

CA is also not a "stand your ground" state, so what and how happens in self defense is a bit more complicated. Generally, if you are in fear of immediate death or grave bodily injury you are justified in using deadly force. The biggest mistake one can do is to discuss the details of an incident without an attorney. The "anything you say *will* be used against you" means exactly what it says - if the DA decides to file charges, his job is to convict you, not to seek the truth.

Then, there are *criminal* and *civil* courts.

Again the emphasis I put is on the fact that the guy ends up without a firearm. You just put yourself in a position where you have to defend shooting someone who was unarmed. We just had an individual a couple of weeks ago who was acting erratically and when two police officers approached him pulled his "weapon" out of his pocket and "aimed" it at one of the officers. He was shot dead and his "weapon" turned out to be some sort of vaping device. Fortunately there is video of this will likely exonerate the officers and the shooting will be ruled "justified." In the OP's case there is not likely to be video and it becomes he said versus the evidence which is that the guy didn't have a firearm. He may be able to convince a jury but I wouldn't want to bet my life (or a significant period of it) on that. That would be a tough row to hoe IMHO. He isn't going to have a jury full of gun owning 2A people deciding his fate either. And then there is the civil court issues he will be dealing with.

And as far the "duty to retreat" part of your argument that becomes clouded by the fact that he chose to confront in the first place. When he says he entered the confrontation with his hand on his firearm I would think that would work against him.

[baggss]

I have read here that your front yard is still consider public because public has access to it.

Say I put up a fence (usually not that high allowed) covering my front yard and to both left and right neighbors sides. The fence has a locked front entrance and also locked sliding for cars to get in and out. There are also multiple signage says No Soliciting No Trespassing/Private Property.

My questions is because the fence is not that high due to city laws, and someone cross or hop over the fence, can i automatically assume its an intruder and into full defense mode? Defense mode meaning have my hand over pistol in holster ready to come out.

Isn't this situation is already after de-escate since this person choose to ignore signage and still hops over, i have no idea what this person want or motive.

Its inside my fenced private property so i would think i have the right to protect my family and deal with the unknown in the above described manner.

What would you do in that situation?

TL: DR

Agree with the rest of the posters here: Don't go full retard and hurt someone for trespassing.

On the other hand, if your front yard fence is as you described it and is high enough you could possibly legally open carry in your front yard. Once it's not accessible to the public, because of the fence, this could be an option.

I bring this up because while you don't want to shoot someone for trespassing having a visible firearm might, in some cases, be a good deterrent. I mean, if some kids baseball lands in your yard and they hop the fence to get it, running out with a visible weapon would be a bad idea. However, if some punks or other societal refuse jumps the fence with bad intentions, then you might want to let them know whats up. Be ready to have the police called though, so make sure you know whats legal and whats not were you live.

Another idea along with the fence: A large, loud dog. Maybe even 2. Seriously, works for me.

[omgwtfbbq]

Firstly, can we get confirmation that OP doesn't have a .ca.gov email account?

Secondly, public access does not preclude trespassing in certain instances. If there are clearly legible NO TRESSPASSING signs, then the individual is usually deemed to have been properly noticed that the property owner does not want individuals there.

Additionally, if LE has been called in regards to a trespassing issue previously and the LEO formally advises the subject that he/she is not allowed on the property ("trespassing" the subject) and the subject returns, there is no need for further advisement on the part of the property owner.

HOWEVER, these factors have absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the use of force, but rather only the legality of an officer or citizen alleging a violation of criminal trespassing (Section 602.5 PC).

The use of legal force is always the same; reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. Putting up signs, fences, or building a "big beautiful wall" doesn't change that.

[sfe187]

good inputs i do appreciate. i understand at the end of the day i have to make those decisions. yes the first scenario i should never come out of the house to confront, it make me the aggressor. call pd and hunker down and if he decides to break in the house, then its another level.

second scenario, is what I'm perplex on when the intruder refuse to comply during a face to face.

a lot of you brought up the legal aspect and yes its something to consider as well.

in the example brought up where the guy had a vapor and pointed at a LEO or recently in vegas where a marine pointed a spraying bottle top at an LEO, i would think its justified when all said an done right? my questions if my intruder end up NOT having a gun but a similar device like the vapor or the spraying bottle top or even a spoon acting and pointing at me, would it be justified for me? Does justification equally for LEOs and Citizens if both have the exact same scenario??

[IVC]

Does justification equally for LEOs and Citizens if both have the exact same scenario??

When it comes to self defense, the rules are the same. (There are some additional situations where LEOs can use deadly force, but they are not related to the self defense of the LEO.)

However, if you want to use that as the standard, consider that rules for speeding are also the same for the LEOs and the rest of us. Then, there is qualified immunity when it comes to civil matters which you won't have.