12ga pepper rounds

[CCRBUM]

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.

[1mean76]

If ever you have to use a firearm you dont want anything coming back at you

its about time someone agrees with me lol

[wildhawker]

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.

[J-cat]

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.

[J-cat]

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"

[highpowermatch]

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

[macadamizer]

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.

[J-cat]

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:

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.

[macadamizer]

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.

[Blue]

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 ***.

[J-cat]

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.

So how do you prove I'm not in fear of my life when I shoot you? The law says I'm in fear by virtue of your break-in. Are you suggesting I need to see a weapon in your hands? Do you have to attack me?

[goodlookin1]

Here's my suggestion:

If someone actually breaks into your residence, have a loaded weapon at the ready, having the first shot chambered be a blank and the rest with normal rounds. The theory behind this is if you go to shoot and the first blank doesnt make the intruder go running, then it is safe to assume they intend to hurt you or your family. You should then be safe in the eyes of the court having more than "presumption" that your life was in imminent danger and that you NEEDED to take the intruder down so as to not have harm come to you or your family.

[GrayWolf09]

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.

That's why it is generally best to only have one version of the truth presented to the jury -- yours. Use the shotgun but with lethal loads. The advantage of a shotgun is that a near miss counts as a hit depending on the distance.

[macadamizer]

So how do you prove I'm not in fear of my life when I shoot you? The law says I'm in fear by virtue of your break-in. Are you suggesting I need to see a weapon in your hands? Do you have to attack me?

Read what I wrote. If there is evidence that you were not in fear of your life when you took the shot, the presumption will be rebutted. How much evidence, and what type of evidence? That all depends on the jury.

If you read carefully what I wrote before, the answer is there. You just don't want to see it, you want to believe you have carte blanche to play Dirty Harry in your house, that you can gun down any intruder regardless of the circumstance. Good luck if you ever find yourself in that position -- hopefully in your case the prosecution won't have sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.

[J-cat]

You have a propensity to read into things. Are you a psychologist?