Deadly force question

[FanTactical]

I understand the use of deadly force when some is inside someone's home, however, what if the assailant is outside. Is deadly force justified in the following cases:

1. someone is trespassing in your fenced-in backyard - you challenge them on why they are there and they attack
a. they are armed
b. they are not armed

2. someone is outside but shoots into your house (think drive-by or home invasion)? Can you shoot back?

For the purpose of this discussion - they make the first hostile move.

Thanks.

[Falconis]

I think so, but you would have to articulate

yes

how do you know? Are they naked and can you see their hands? again, articulate. even for the yes above, you have to articulate.

[Samuelx]

I understand the use of deadly force when some is inside someone's home, however, what if the assailant is outside. Is deadly force justified in the following cases:

1. someone is trespassing in your fenced-in backyard - you challenge them on why they are there and they attack
a. they are armed
b. they are not armed

2. someone is outside but shoots into your house (think drive-by or home invasion)? Can you shoot back?

For the purpose of this discussion - they make the first hostile move.

Thanks.

Actually, from your questions, I don't think you have a good enough understanding of deadly force period (regardless of inside/outside, armed/not armed, etc). Your hypothetical scenarios do not have anywhere near enough information.

If you're using deadly force against someone, you'd better be able to articulate defending yourself or someone else against life threatening or serious bodily injury (look up 243(f)(4) PC for an idea of SBI). As Falconis pointed out, you have to Articulate - In Detail.

Just because "someone" is "armed" and they "attack" you, whether it's inside OR outside your home, doesn't give you an automatic green light to use deadly force. You need to describe, In Detail, the totality of the circumstances and using words/terms like "someone", "armed", and "attack" are extremely vague, ambiguous, and subjective. Also, just because you can explain it doesn't mean that's good enough - people will have to believe you and agree that what you did was reasonable under the circumstances.

[Ron-Solo]

I agree

[spy-d]

I for one beleve that Deadly Force would be the last resort if everything else fails. Of course, Deadly force could be an option if someone has backed you into a corner to the point that is IS NO WAY out and the attacker is in fact killing you.

If someone is just cutting across your backyard, I would call a LEO and report it. If he comes toward you, Leave the backyard and go into your house and lock all the doors and windows.

Now, If he comes into your locked home with a weapon and is hell bent to kill you and your family, Then you will need to do what you can to defend and protect yourself and your family untill help gets there.

You can give examples after examples all day every day, But untill that day comes, There are no answers to your questions.

Just my thoughts.

[RickD427]

Actually, from your questions, I don't think you have a good enough understanding of deadly force period (regardless of inside/outside, armed/not armed, etc). Your hypothetical scenarios do not have anywhere near enough information.

If you're using deadly force against someone, you'd better be able to articulate defending yourself or someone else against life threatening or serious bodily injury (look up 243(f)(4) PC for an idea of SBI). As Falconis pointed out, you have to Articulate - In Detail.

Just because "someone" is "armed" and they "attack" you, whether it's inside OR outside your home, doesn't give you an automatic green light to use deadly force. You need to describe, In Detail, the totality of the circumstances and using words/terms like "someone", "armed", and "attack" are extremely vague, ambiguous, and subjective. Also, just because you can explain it doesn't mean that's good enough - people will have to believe you and agree that what you did was reasonable under the circumstances.

I second Samuelx on this one and add a statement given to me by a retired commander from my agency that really put everything into a simple perspective - "You shoot somebody because you have to, not because you can."

[P5Ret]

"You shoot somebody because you have to, not because you can."

^ That right there. I would add a that if you shoot at a vehicle after a drive by be prepared to go to jail. Since the threat has in fact gone away.

[spy-d]

I third Samuelx and Second P5Ret. If the threat goes away, Then it's done and Over with.

[FanTactical]

Thanks for the responses, everyone. Perhaps the point of my question was missed. I was asking whether deadly force could ever be justified on subjects "outside" of the home who are targeting those inside the home. The expected answers were that it depends on the circumstances (with examples of where it would and would not be justified) or a flat "no" because if they are outside they are not really a direct threat.

Thanks for the PC ref. Samuelx. Having lived in other states that have vastly different views on when deadly force can be used inside the home, I assure you that I do, in fact, have a better understanding than the average bear.

The cases were intentionally vague to generate discussion from you, the people that I would have to explain the situation to. What conditions would you be looking for - again, for subjects attacking from outside the home? I fully expect that it would be MUCH harder to justify such a response.

[003]

What is California Self-defense Law?

According to California law, you act in lawful self-defense if you:

1.reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or

2.believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and

3.use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

California self-defense law justifies your injuring (or even killing) another person if these conditions are satisfied. This means that if these requirements are met, self-defense can serve as a complete defense to a California violent crime if you are forced to kill or injure another.


An interesting Article:

California’s court-developed Stand Your Ground law by Walter Olson on April 18, 2012

Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent report on California’s longstanding recognition of Stand Your Ground self-defense principles in public places, which developed through judicial rather than legislative action. He reports that “even Californians who illegally carry handguns can invoke the stand-your-ground doctrine, as shown in a 2005 ruling by a state appeals court in Santa Ana.” By contrast, compare the misleading-at-best map run in Wednesday’s news-side Wall Street Journal, which purports to show states with “stand your ground laws in place” but treats California as not having one.

The WSJ lists its sources for the map as “Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Legal Community Against Violence; National Conference of State Legislatures.” Perhaps the paper was relying overmuch on input from anti-gun groups that have sought to portray Stand Your Ground as a novelty foisted on state legislatures in recent years, thus underplaying the doctrine’s deep historical roots in much of America.

Lastly Califortnia Penal Code 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.

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

[Ron-Solo]

There is no "right or wrong" answer. Like others have said, so much depends on the individual circumstances at the time, and the reasonableness of your actions, based on those circumstances.

The best confrontation is the one you avoid.

[003]

"The best confrontation is the one you avoid."

Amen to that
__________________

[spy-d]

Hear hear to that too.

[P345]

Real situation

Ok here is a real situation. Three of us, myself and two young teenagers are at the Giants Parade. The two boys are sitting on the ground and a homeless person comes along and stabs my son in the head with a metal object. My son was wearing a hat so the object did not penetrate his head. A bystander starting yelling at the homeless person and got my attention. I followed the person and started to ask questions. She held up an object that looked like a needle and threw it into the crowd. I called the police and while on the phone with 911 she punch me in the mouth. 911 advised me to move away from the person but she continued to pursue me. When I mentioned the police are on they way she ran. The police interviewed myself and my son. They ended up capturing her but at the same time they really couldn't do anything outside of a 5150.

I took the advice of the 911 operator and moved away from the person.

Now, here is the question. Would I have had just cause to defend myself and my family and in what type of manner?

sorry to hijack the thread..

[Ron-Solo]

Ok here is a real situation. Three of us, myself and two young teenagers are at the Giants Parade. The two boys are sitting on the ground and a homeless person comes along and stabs my son in the head with a metal object. My son was wearing a hat so the object did not penetrate his head. A bystander starting yelling at the homeless person and got my attention. I followed the person and started to ask questions. She held up an object that looked like a needle and threw it into the crowd. I called the police and while on the phone with 911 she punch me in the mouth. 911 advised me to move away from the person but she continued to pursue me. When I mentioned the police are on they way she ran. The police interviewed myself and my son. They ended up capturing her but at the same time they really couldn't do anything outside of a 5150.

I took the advice of the 911 operator and moved away from the person.

Now, here is the question. Would I have had just cause to defend myself and my family and in what type of manner?

sorry to hijack the thread..

Your scenario is exactly why I encourage people to carry pepper spray. In your situation, you would have been 100% justified in spraying her. Taser, absolutely. Deadly force, probably not, but maybe during certain phases.

Not a thread jack, but a valid question.