Can home owner face charges?

[AGGRO]

http://fox5sandiego.com/2017/04/03/man-shoots-at-suspected-burglars-rummaging-through-home/

he loaded his 9mm gun and fired three shots at the men.

[dieselpower]

The homeowner believes the two men got inside the home through an open garage door. He says when he woke up and heard strangers downstairs and then saw their flashlights he loaded his 9mm gun and fired three shots at the men.

This is a quote from a reporter. If this was the actual statement from the Homeowner and this is what happened, its attempted homicide or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property. You can only use deadly force to protect life.

I think the Homeowner probably saw something in their hands and fired in fear of his life. That is legal.

In my world, the Homeowner would be allowed to not only kill the trespassers, but put their decapitated heads on a stick as a warning to others...but thats just me.

[XDJYo]

California has a Castle Doctrine.

[spyde12]

Regardless of the circumstances, decline to give any statement and seek counsel.

I've read too many stories in which the homeowner was justified to use lethal force. Unfortunately, due to the statement and the way he worded his/her side of the event in question, it was used to seal the prosecution's narrative.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[AGGRO]

Regardless of the circumstances, decline to give any statement and seek counsel.

I've read too many stories in which the homeowner was justified to use lethal force. Unfortunately, due to the statement and the way he worded his/her side of the event in question, it was used to seal the prosecution's narrative.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

I'd like to know how the news vans got there.

[therealnickb]

This is a quote from a reporter. If this was the actual statement from the Homeowner and this is what happened, its attempted homicide or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property. You can only use deadly force to protect life.

I think the Homeowner probably saw something in their hands and fired in fear of his life. That is legal.

In my world, the Homeowner would be allowed to not only kill the trespassers, but put their decapitated heads on a stick as a warning to others...but thats just me.

He went on the news and made that statement. I didn't hear him say anything about seeing a weapon or feeling threatened. He said he saw someone and fired.

[glockman19]

This is a quote from a reporter. If this was the actual statement from the Homeowner and this is what happened, its attempted homicide or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property. You can only use deadly force to protect life.

I think the Homeowner probably saw something in their hands and fired in fear of his life. That is legal.

In my world, the Homeowner would be allowed to not only kill the trespassers, but put their decapitated heads on a stick as a warning to others...but thats just me.

Yet the California Constitution says that you have an Inalienable Right to:

California Constitution Article 1, Section 1,
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

You have an Inalienable Right to Protect yourself, your property and to obtain safety.

I choose a firearm for ALL three.

[Jimi Jah]

An affirmative action civil jury will fix this.

[DRM6000]

PC 198.5 allows for the use of force to defend an occupied residence.

[Win231]

This is a quote from a reporter. If this was the actual statement from the Homeowner and this is what happened, its attempted homicide or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.

You cannot use deadly force to protect your property. You can only use deadly force to protect life.

I think the Homeowner probably saw something in their hands and fired in fear of his life. That is legal.

In my world, the Homeowner would be allowed to not only kill the trespassers, but put their decapitated heads on a stick as a warning to others...but thats just me.

Putting their decapitated heads on a stick would be tampering with evidence.

[packnrat]

in a free and proper world. very legal.
in ca the home owner is going to prison.

need more input.
i just hope the home owner shut the hi11 up till after talking to legal counsel.


.

[P5Ret]

California has a Castle Doctrine.

California has "no duty to retreat" in your home. 198.5 CPC is an affirmative defense, in your home to use deadly force from a perceived threat of violence. It is not a "castle doctrine" as it gives no right to defend property.

There is too little information in the article to say one way or the other.

[heidad01]

And the number of break in/ burglaries is on a constant rise. Comes with it the legal follow up court cases and a long chain of costly paper work, detention, etc. If the changed the law to breaking into some one's house qualifies for getting shot, many of the cases will be resolved on the spot with a good deterrent for the other dirt bags.

[RickD427]

California has a Castle Doctrine.

California does not have a traditional "Castle Doctrine" as that term is commonly used.

The closest thing that we have is the legal presumption contained in Penal Code section 198.5. Here is the text:

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury."

Penal Code section 198.5 differs from a traditional "Castle Doctrine" in two significant ways:

1) The presumption is rebuttable. A victim can still be criminally charged and convicted for using deadly force against a forcible intruder.

2) The victim has no protection from a civil suit resulting from their use of force.

Folks who would maintain that California has a "Castle Doctrine" should keep these limitations in mind.

[RickD427]

PC 198.5 allows for the use of force to defend an occupied residence.

No. It does not.

It only creates a rebuttable presumption that the victim held the requisite fear required to use deadly force.

There's a big difference between these two things.