Did you know CA basically has "Stand Your Ground"?

[DrjonesUSA]

Did a quick search & didn't see any threads like this; I was extremely surprised to find this article....just FYI:

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Stand-your-ground-the-rule-in-state-courts-affirm-3482665.php

[berg]

Interesting. That part I took note of was this

The Florida law, however, contains a major pro-defense feature absent in California and other states: a pretrial, nonjury hearing in which a judge, after considering the evidence, decides whether it's more likely than not that the defendant acted in self-defense.

If so, the judge must dismiss the charges. In California, such factual disputes must be resolved by a jury.

To me this sounds like in CA you are forced to pay for your defense no matter what. In Florida a judge can rule immediately if the action was justified, thus alleviating the need to pay for a trial.

[Wolverine]

We (California) should authorize the Jury and/or Judge to award a defendant that is acquitted reasonable attorney fees. This would at least give some protection against overzealous prosecution.

I've served on a Jury where it was unanimous that the facts did not support a conviction even taken in the light most favorable to the persecution. We would have awarded the defendant reasonable attorney fees if we could have.

[vantec08]

Interesting. That part I took note of was this



To me this sounds like in CA you are forced to pay for your defense no matter what. In Florida a judge can rule immediately if the action was justified, thus alleviating the need to pay for a trial.

Right. In the case of castle doctrine, immune from civil prosecution also.

[Paladin]

FL has the NRA's model Castle Doctrine law which also includes a presumption that someone breaking into an occupied vehicle is intending to harm those inside.

It also has a provision that bars the BG or his survivors from civil lawsuits against the GG if the GG was not convicted of criminal wrong doing in his demise.

That latter provision is what really gets the liberals, antis and various "community leaders" ticked off -- they can't sue you for all you're worth after a "good shoot."

CA needs all of the provisions of the NRA's model Castle Doctrine law!

[003]

Also California Penal code 198.5 provides protection to a home owner using lethal force in his home.
It creates a presumption in law that the home owner was in fear of his life, and does not require that the home owner prove he acted as a result of that fear.

While there are many things in California that I do not like as it relates to firearms. The law is on the side of the honest home owner who is a victim in his/her own home.

198.5 PC
"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."

[calixt0]

Also California Penal code 198.5 provides protection to a home owner using lethal force in his home.
It creates a presumption in law that the home owner was in fear of his life, and does not require that the home owner prove he acted as a result of that fear.

While there are many things in California that I do not like as it relates to firearms. The law is on the side of the honest home owner who is a victim in his/her own home.

198.5 PC
"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."

While this is supposed to be the case, I don't believe the evidence demonstrates that is how its treated in Kalifornia.

[cacop]

Interesting. That part I took note of was this



To me this sounds like in CA you are forced to pay for your defense no matter what. In Florida a judge can rule immediately if the action was justified, thus alleviating the need to pay for a trial.

If you can squash it in a prelim there is no need for a trial. Of course a prelim in front of a foaming at the mouth liberal judge PC will be found.

[Gray Peterson]

In 1984, the Los Angeles DA was prosecuting home owners for many years beforehand, resulting in a highly supported change in law that was supported by 37 out of 40 Senators.

I don't tend to push for a product, but there is where something like the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network comes in really handy.

[Dreaded Claymore]

In 1984, the Los Angeles DA was prosecuting home owners for many years beforehand, resulting in a highly supported change in law that was supported by 37 out of 40 Senators.

I don't tend to push for a product, but there is where something like the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network comes in really handy.

Calguns and science fiction novels* agree: Los Angeles is Hell.

*Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler.