Home defense discussion

[BlackbriarHQ]

Got into firearms mainly for this purpose, to protect my family. I'm wondering about the legalities involved if a person were to break in.. are all bets off in that case? I'm 100 percent positive that I will do anything to protect my family should this occur one day (hopefully not), and I am just curious as to what the aftermath is like. Any Calguns lawyers or officers can lend some advice? Also, please post your experience, planning, products used and tactics dealing with home defense. Hoping to learn a lot from the experienced Calgunners out there. Thanks..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voiceofreason]

I am not an attorney, so this is not legal advice. Just a guy on the internet pontificating.

Basics:

-you shoot to defend life and persons only- not property, not ever property in CA

-if they're in your home, there is a presumption that you are defending yourself; BUT given that it could just be a neighbor that walked through an open door... you're better off not shooting unless absolutely certain you must if it can be avoided.

-you must positively identify who you're shooting . ie. you may NOT shoot through a door not knowing for sure what's on the other side

-you must be able to articulate WHY you shot them or shot at them- "I felt threatened" might fly in your home at 2:00am, but finding a person in your home at noon in a cable company uniform might not

-no warning shots, ever. they're illegal in CA. ignore EVERYTHING that comes out of Joe Biden's mouth.

-you may be attacked TWICE in any shooting. first by the criminal, then by our justice system.


wait. this is better:

pay specific attention to ability, opportunity, jeopardy

http://www.spw-duf.info/force.html

the top of the webpage has a number of GREAT links to GREAT advice

Wenger was a noted firearms trainer here in CA years ago.

[Percenter3]

Lets just start off with the fact that in California, your or your families lives have to be in danger to use deadly force. You cant shoot to protect property, and you cant shoot just because someone is in your property, even in your house. If you kill someone and you cant prove they were threatening your life, you will be in serious doo doo.

As far as products.. well thats a matter of personal opinion, but a handgun or shotgun is best for in home defense. If you have a safe or a secure drawer, keep a gun loaded by your bed. I dont have a safe and I have a small child so I have my pistol under my bed, with a loaded mag nearby, but too high for a child to reach.

[fiddletown]

Got into firearms mainly for this purpose, to protect my family. I'm wondering about the legalities involved if a person were to break in...

The question of when one may legally use force in self defense comes up regularly. This is a general and high level overview.

But first the usual caveats: (1) I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer; (2) This is not legal advice, but rather it's general information on a legal topic; and (3) this is intended as a general overview without reference to the laws of any particular State, and as such it doesn't consider specific state laws that might allow justification of a use of force in some circumstance not mentioned here.

Now let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
      
      
   3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
      
      
      1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
      2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
      3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
      
      
      
   2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
      
      
   3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
      
      
   4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
      
      
   5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
   
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
   3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
     
     
   • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

[voiceofreason]

ultimately, it's still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

[afteractionreport]

Your life has to be in danger...you have to prove that your life or families life was being threatened and you had no choice but to shoot to defend yourself...never shoot a baddy in the back ,never over kill (if it gets to that point)..im assuming your a law obiding citizen so that help your credibility if shtf...

[omgwtfbbq]

I must be getting jaded because every time someone with a low post count starts asking legal questions that you can find via google, I start thinking they're trolling.

That being said, if you really want true-blue legal advice, you should ask a lawyer, particularly one that has experience in firearms law and use of force. The Calguns lawyers rarely comment on threads like this, and for good reason, so maybe finding someone in your community might work better.

My personal opinion is that I would employ a lethal option only if I believed in that moment that the lives and safety of myself or my family were in danger. Property can be replaced, that's why I have insurance. I'm not going to kill someone over my wallet. If you want it, you can have it. The minute you threaten me or my family with a weapon though, there will be consequences.

[Librarian]

I believe you would find this book useful - Andrew Branca, "The Law of Self Defense". I bought it; I recommend it.

[BlackbriarHQ]

I must be getting jaded because every time someone with a low post count starts asking legal questions that you can find via google, I start thinking they're trolling.

That being said, if you really want true-blue legal advice, you should ask a lawyer, particularly one that has experience in firearms law and use of force. The Calguns lawyers rarely comment on threads like this, and for good reason, so maybe finding someone in your community might work better.

My personal opinion is that I would employ a lethal option only if I believed in that moment that the lives and safety of myself or my family were in danger. Property can be replaced, that's why I have insurance. I'm not going to kill someone over my wallet. If you want it, you can have it. The minute you threaten me or my family with a weapon though, there will be consequences.

Dont know what trolling is, just looking for a little advice. Looked up what I could on the internet (maybe not a professional internet search like yourself, but sufficient by my standards) and I just figured that I could use some knowledge from more experienced people from California to help plan and protect my family.. I don't know any lawyers and what it would cost to consult one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlackbriarHQ]

(Accidentally hit send, sorry.)

I do appreciate the input, I've learned a bunch already in a few posts.. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joepamjohn]

Since you are unsure about the legal aspects of it and are "new to guns", and no doubt you do not know anything about the actual moral side of when to use or not use lethal force. My suggestion is to spend your money on the best alarm system you can afford and keep your doors locked to protect your family. So many people on this site brag about their "guns in every room" protection theory, but in reality they would have no clue of what to do in a real SHTF scenario either. It's easy to strap on all of you gear and look cool in the mirror, but to use the gear is a whole different story. Security cameras, alarms and good locks keep the trouble out so you don't have to deal with all of the different types of trouble if that trouble gets in.

[omgwtfbbq]

Since you are unsure about the legal aspects of it and are "new to guns", and no doubt you do not know anything about the actual moral side of when to use or not use lethal force. My suggestion is to spend your money on the best alarm system you can afford and keep your doors locked to protect your family. So many people on this site brag about their "guns in every room" protection theory, but in reality they would have no clue of what to do in a real SHTF scenario either. It's easy to strap on all of you gear and look cool in the mirror, but to use the gear is a whole different story. Security cameras, alarms and good locks keep the trouble out so you don't have to deal with all of the different types of trouble if that trouble gets in.

This is pretty dead on. Legality is only one side of the coin so to speak when it comes gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. Morality and mental preparedness is the other half.

As one of the resident "gun guys" in my office and group of friends, I get a lot of questions regarding whether or not a friend or colleague should get a gun. The overwhelming answer when asked what they want the firearm for is "protection", usually meaning home defense.

So I ask them, "Are you mentally and emotionally prepared to kill someone if necessary?" It's usually a 50/50 split of people saying "Yes." and people saying "Well I don't know, I never thought about it that way." and of those 50 people who say "Yes." I doubt that 40 of them actually are.

[bigbearbear]

Got into firearms mainly for this purpose, to protect my family. I'm wondering about the legalities involved if a person were to break in.. are all bets off in that case? I'm 100 percent positive that I will do anything to protect my family should this occur one day (hopefully not), and I am just curious as to what the aftermath is like. Any Calguns lawyers or officers can lend some advice? Also, please post your experience, planning, products used and tactics dealing with home defense. Hoping to learn a lot from the experienced Calgunners out there. Thanks..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not a lawyer myself, I use the Handgun Safety Certificate study guide as a reference about gun laws. There is a small section which covers use of deadly force for self-defence:

Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and BodyLimitations 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. Furthermore, a person may only use the amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is important to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties.

The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another. However, if such a 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.

In other words, you have to be to justify that you are facing a life threatening situation and that you shot only to stop the threat.

If you have not already, I would recommend reading the HSC study guide, it is pretty simple and brief but it'll give you a general idea about taking ownership and responsibilities involved with firearms. You can download it here: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/hscsg.pdf

[BlackbriarHQ]

This is pretty dead on. Legality is only one side of the coin so to speak when it comes gun ownership for the purpose of self defense. Morality and mental preparedness is the other half.



As one of the resident "gun guys" in my office and group of friends, I get a lot of questions regarding whether or not a friend or colleague should get a gun. The overwhelming answer when asked what they want the firearm for is "protection", usually meaning home defense.



So I ask them, "Are you mentally and emotionally prepared to kill someone if necessary?" It's usually a 50/50 split of people saying "Yes." and people saying "Well I don't know, I never thought about it that way." and of those 50 people who say "Yes." I doubt that 40 of them actually are.

I think whats pretty dead on is that you guys are misinterpreting what Im actually inquiring about.. Im merely asking what procedure, since we are in California, there may be when an intruder means to do you and your family harm in your house (thats what I meant by "if all bets were off"). Having this info would definitely help if in actually proving that there was no choice (in which of course, there wouldnt be). Not trying to be a tough guy (which I dont claim to be), just trying to gain knowledge and prepare for if ever this were to occur. So maybe the question you should ask is "are you prepared to protect your family?", and Im hoping that the 40 out if 50 people you personally know would actually mean it if they said "yes".

Again, thanks for all the input to the guys that posted links.. Im learning a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlackbriarHQ]

Since you are unsure about the legal aspects of it and are "new to guns", and no doubt you do not know anything about the actual moral side of when to use or not use lethal force. My suggestion is to spend your money on the best alarm system you can afford and keep your doors locked to protect your family. So many people on this site brag about their "guns in every room" protection theory, but in reality they would have no clue of what to do in a real SHTF scenario either. It's easy to strap on all of you gear and look cool in the mirror, but to use the gear is a whole different story. Security cameras, alarms and good locks keep the trouble out so you don't have to deal with all of the different types of trouble if that trouble gets in.

I believe I do know, just like the rest if us interested in home defense, when it is appropriate to use lethal force. For example, if a bad guy came into my daughters room with a weapon, Im pretty sure lethal force should be applied. Neighbor walking the dog and accidentally walks on lawn, Im pretty sure gets a pass.

Guys, again.. Not trying to be a tough guy in front of the mirror and I dont know how I came off like that in my original post but Im just looking for any information and suggestions. Security cams to keep trouble out, check.. Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk