CCW THREAT QUESTION

[RickD427]

Next time he is on your property uninvited, can't you just enforce Castle Doctrine, if he seems like a threat? You should already have him on film of snooping, and possible view of firearm?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just what do you mean by "enforce Castle Doctrine."

Please note that California does not have a "Castle Doctrine." The closest thing that we have is the presumption of threat contained in Penal Code section 198.5. That presumption only applies where a non-family member forces entry into your residence. PC 198.5 falls short of being a classic "Castle Doctrine" in that it's limited to the inside of your residence, the presumption is rebuttable, and there is no protection against civil lawsuit.

[Highlander21]

Just what do you mean by "enforce Castle Doctrine."

Please note that California does not have a "Castle Doctrine." The closest thing that we have is the presumption of threat contained in Penal Code section 198.5. That presumption only applies where a non-family member forces entry into your residence. PC 198.5 falls short of being a classic "Castle Doctrine" in that it's limited to the inside of your residence, the presumption is rebuttable, and there is no protection against civil lawsuit.

The presumption is not rebuttable without substantial evidence. PC 198.5 falls a little short, but it's still pretty good for the average person who just wants to defend his family.

PC 198.5 does give you stand your ground rights inside the home with a known intruder. States like Hawaii don't even have a Castle Doctrine.

[RickD427]

The presumption is not rebuttable without substantial evidence. PC 198.5 falls a little short, but it's still pretty good for the average person who just wants to defend his family.

PC 198.5 does give you stand your ground rights inside the home with a known intruder. States like Hawaii don't even have a Castle Doctrine.

I'm not sure where you came up with the "Substantial" evidence requirement for rebuttal. That requirement is not contained in the statute, nor does it appear in any case law that I'm aware of. Can you please provide the source?

PC 198.5 does give you a lot of legal support when you use deadly force against an intruder in your home, but you left out two additional requirements: 1) The intruder cannot be a member of the household, a 2) The intruder must "forcibly and unlawfully" enter the residence.

PC 198.5 will not help you against an intruder who simply walks into your home without using any force.

Please note that the fact setting presented by the OP involved contact with the other party that occurred outside of the residence. That point alone takes PC 198.5 off the table.

[Highlander21]

I'm not sure where you came up with the "Substantial" evidence requirement for rebuttal. That requirement is not contained in the statute, nor does it appear in any case law that I'm aware of. Can you please provide the source?

PC 198.5 does give you a lot of legal support when you use deadly force against an intruder in your home, but you left out two additional requirements: 1) The intruder cannot be a member of the household, a 2) The intruder must "forcibly and unlawfully" enter the residence.

PC 198.5 will not help you against an intruder who simply walks into your home without using any force.

Please note that the fact setting presented by the OP involved contact with the other party that occurred outside of the residence. That point alone takes PC 198.5 off the table.

Substantial because you need overwhelming evidence that your life was not in danger.

He added: “If you’re the homeowner, inside your home, the person is no longer there. But if he’s fleeing, he turns around and suddenly reaches for his waistband and you believe your life is in danger, again, you don’t have to sit there and wait to see what’s going to happen next.”

I didn't mean to come off as the Ukiah hero was using PC 198.5 to justify that situation. That's not what I meant at all. All I meant to say was that the Castle Doctrine of California actually seems pretty good given how "anti-self defense" a lot of other California laws are.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/03/16/what-california-law-says-is-legal-when-it-comes-to-defending-oneself-during-a-burglary/

[Samuelx]

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_2018_edition.pdf

[b] (Matthew Bender).

[RickD427]

Substantial because you need overwhelming evidence that your life was not in danger.

You're going in circles here. You're arguing that "Substantial" means that "Overwhelming" evidence is needed to overcome the presumption. It looks like you've just used another synonym to repeat the same thing.

I can't find any basis for that belief.

Are you just making this up, or can you actually provide a citation to statutory or case law?

SamuelX - Thanks much for posting the California Jury Instruction. That's quite helpful to this discussion. The Jury Instruction only points out the prosecution's duty to meet it's burden of proof. There is no mention of any heighted evidentiary requirement for the prosecution to overcome the PC 198.5 presumption.

[Samuelx]

Copy that Sir, thanks.