In SoCal, at least where I am familiar with the areas, we dispatch several cars. To contain an area, then search for the bad guys, several police officers are needed. Burglaries In-Progress, as we call them, are rare, especially when the occupants are home. Most residential burglaries occur during the day when most people are at work.

Keep up the good work Lendaddy and keep your officers safe my friend, David

No, not in Kalifornia. They have to have some edge on you. Some reason why their attack is an imminent threat likely to cause death or great bodily harm. They have to be bigger than you, or armed, or on drugs, or enraged... SOMETHING that means they won't just hit you, but injure you severely or even kill you. Threatening to kill you doesn't justify a shooting if they haven't demonstrated the ability to do so. You can't shoot somebody to stop them from giving you a fat lip and a black eye.

However, if they are INSIDE your house, and entered unlawfully, there is a clause in Kalifornia law that I interpret to mean you can assume they are there to inflict great bodily harm. (I'm no lawyer, check it out yourself if you live in CA.)

Maybe. Only if 12 of your peers agree that the situation was likely to cause you great bodily harm. If a 3ft midget comes at me with a stick, and I'm 6'1" 220lbs, are they going to believe me that my life was in danger? Not likely.

And from what I've heard, divorce/alimony law varies quite a bit state-to-state, at least in Kalifornia.
Absolutely. In CA you CANNOT kill somebody to protect property. You CANNOT chase somebody out the door and shoot them as they run away. That's a situation where the threat has ended, the right to self defense becomes theirs, and you can be convicted of murder.
Absolutely. Although, as I mentioned before, there's a clause in CA law that sounds to me like you can shoot somebody to prevent them from gaining entry, provided that they are attempting to enter and cause death or great bodily harm. If possible to do so safely, I suggest waiting for them to bust the door and step into the entry way. Less legal concerns!

Again, I'm speaking to my understanding of CA law.

arizona ARS 13-405 is clear if you are in fear of your life you may use deadly force.


no weapon. if they advance on you and continue their threats. and you are in fear of your life.



3'3 midget or a 6'9 monster. male or female. young or old. white black brown oriental eskimo pink green purple.


you have a right to defend yourself.



99.9% of the time(and its a new law) if you display a weapon the treat goes away.


i mean DUH! getting shot HURTS LIKE ALL HELL. but thats how reasonable people think.


when under influence of drugs/booze all reasoning goes out window.



the case outside of payson where the guy w/the 10mm colt delta elite having crazy guys dog go after him and he shot dog and then the guy comes after him and guy shoots guy with dog was overthrown and he was released from prison.


the law now states that YOU do not have to prove your innocence, but plaintiff must prove your egregious error in judgement.



at night, the best all around setup is a very bright xenon flashlight attached to your spoon be it a short spoon or a long spoon. ID bad guy and his location. and then ya get to make a life changing decision.

Which is pretty messed up, because I'm sure that physical size is probably only an indicator of who will win a fight some of the time. I suspect plenty of times when a little guy has knocked the crap out of a big guy. And what happens when a little guy catches you on the chin just right and knocks you out. I have no idea what they are going to do once you're laying there out cold. Are you supposed to ask folks (do you plan to just pop me a couple of times, or do you plan to put me in the hospital?

I suspect, if someone really plans to hurt you (and there's no way to know for sure until after the fact, when it's too late) that you're ability to defend yourself with a weapon is probabyl going to be greatly diminished if you wait until they've beat you to within an inch of your life.

I'm not a fighter. I've never been in a fist fight. I don't know how one would turn out and I'd prefer to not find out. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to fight me, they are potentially out to kill me or put me in the hospital, and I'm going to do whatever it takes to keep that from happening.

Fortunately, I live in Texas. I should be good to go if it ever comes to that.

Absolutely untrue in every state in the Union.

You absolutely can shoot someone to stop them from punching you out.

There is absolutely now law in this land that requires the victim of an attack to guess the attacker's ultimate intentions, to guess how far he is willing to go, before determining a response. The victim has every right to put a stop to the attack as quickly and decisively as possible, while minimizing any risk or injury whatsoever to himself. An unprovoked attack always has one unwilling participant, the victim, and that victim has no legal or moral obligation to ascertain how bad it's going to get before he takes measures to stop the attack. Like I said earlier, self defense is no sporting event. There is no obligation to be "fair". Marquess of Queensbury rules do not apply.

Head... I can't read through all of what you posted, but you need to distinguish as you are blurring circumstances together. There is no mention of pursuing these people, stepping outside his house to confront them -- none of that.

In the instance of what Sammy was dealing with, deadly force would have been fine. It was considered a threat to his and his wife's lives. Before spewing your "understanding" do a search on findlaw or onecle for an actual penal code.

You didn't highlight the within his or her residence part, which goes along with what you highlighted in red. That's what I'm referring to, along with somebody's comment that "if they're on your property you can shoot them". No, not in CA, not if they're outside yelling at you, not if they're running away. If they're in the process of breaking in - like in Sammy's case - maybe.

The way the law reads, there's no maybe.

Sammy, glad you are OK. I do hope the cop got the right guys because that is NOT dig dong ditching or wtf ever they said it was.

Brando, what you posted does not apply to Sammy's situation. This does:

I said "maybe" because I didn't have the text in front of me and did not want to give anybody advice that could land them in jail. (The last time I searched for the above I didn't find it, your reference to 198 helped.)

And Jeff, how can you make a blanket statement about "every state in the union" when laws are different all over, from the right to posess a handgun to states that require a homeowner to retreat?

Brando's quote (above) says:
By this measure, a black eye does not justify shooting. There has to be some factor that would make the injury you would sustain "significant or substantial" to justify shooting them. If I'm about to be punched by somebody smaller than me, there's no reason to think my injury would be significant. If they're armed, yes. If they're much bigger than me, yes. Crazy, yes. High, yes.

If I'm misinterpreting this, please explain it to me. I'll admit it's been a couple years since the last time I read through the penal code.

Jeff, I wish it were true, but around here that's not how it is prosecuted. No whatifs, real stories abound where some guy gets pummeled in a bar, pulls out a knife or gun and kills his assailant. A lot of the time this happens outside when he fight gets started for a 2nd time. The one who killed the other will get a manslaughter charge at the minimum. The police seem to make a big deal out of whether the other guy was armed or not.

Not saying they get convicted 100% or that a plea bargain doesn't occur to a lesser charge like aggravated assault.

Quoted for emphasis. This is the gotcha in the law - it isn't as black and white as some of you think. The fear of death/grave injury has to be reasonable. And that bar is not absolute.

You missed the "shall be presumed to have held..." part which is the fact of the law (not a gotcha). There are no "ifs" in there.

O.k., we are getting down to the "beating a dead horse" stage of the discussion. One last time: The victim has no obligation whatsoever, under any law or statute in any state, to polish up his chrystal ball and predict just how far his assailant is willing or able to go. The victim is legally and morally justified in stopping the attack as soon as possible, as decisively as possible, with as little risk to himself as possible. Period. In any jurisdiction.

The victim is under no obligation to fist fight an attacker because it "looks" like it could be a fair fight, and it's all that attacker wants to do.

That's an irresponsible statement, and somebody following your advice can find themselves in serious legal trouble.

If they are not armed and you shoot them dead, in Kali you are likely to have manslaughter charges. They MUST be inside your home, armed and threatening your life. If this is not the case you are in a grey area in which you would prefer not to be.

They would probably have grabbed a knife on the way through the kitchen, or the bat you keep by the front door.


If you shoot someone in your house, do it until they are stopped, especially in Kalifornia.

Famous last words right before a 140 pound boxer, fighter, little Napoleon opens up a can of whoop ass on you and breaks your face.

This happens around here as well. There is, however, a big difference between a typical bar fight where the loser decides he would like to become the winner, and escalates it by drawing a weapon, and an unprovoked attack. Such bar fights typically have two willing participants up to the point where the weapon is drawn. The motive is no longer self defense, but retribution. Most of us can tell the difference, at least most of the time.

It does, however, get a bit fuzzy at times. Like when it spills outside. Can that ever be justifiable self-defense? Maybe if the first guy out is simply trying to leave and defuse the situation, and he kills the second guy out, who is chasing him. What if the second guy out kills the first, the guy he followed? Prolly murder...

You are absolutely right, of course. There is an awful lot of gray area, and many cases of "self defense" are anything but. Often it's two complicit parties with a beef of some sort between them. Does that mean one had to, or conversely could not kill the other? Depends... that's what courts are for, to weigh the circumstances surrounding the death.

Some will be clear-cut, and with more and more states passing "castle doctrine" and other such self-defense law, the lines are getting much clearer. What they are saying, essentially, is that an honest man, in fear of bodily harm, death, or even property loss (in some states), no longer has to retreat from a criminal.

What I was trying to address earlier is the patently absurd notions that one must be at some physical disadvantage, that the assailant must be armed, that one must already be injured, that if it looks as if the assailant just wants to beat you up a bit you cannot arm yourself, or any of that claptrap has even the slightest hint of truth to it. It simply does not.

One of the keys to armed self defense is to keep the assailant at a distance from which he cannot harm you. Waiting until he clocks you one to determine if he means it, or to take the punch that will satisfy a jury of your peers, simply means you have already lost. If he gets that close, he may very well disarm you and use your own gun against you.

No, the idea is to present the gun at a distance from which it cannot be taken from you and tell the S.O.B. to bugger off, go prone on the ground, or what have you. Any refusal on his part and it's time to start shooting. No negotiating, no sizing him up to see if he is bigger than you, no hesitating to make sure he is armed - none of that. His refusal to obey the commands of an armed victim constitutes a "reasonable concern" that he intends to do you harm.

If the assailant has already grabbed you, you have no obligation to ask him what his plans are before you draw and, in this case, probably fire. If you can get him to let go at the sight of the gun, great, but most will try to grab it if they see it. Best to come up shooting on this one.

Legal trouble? Count on it if you are ever unfortunate enough to have to do this. Overzealous prosecutors abound - these "castle doctrine" and other self-defense laws have been passed explicitly to reign those clowns in. That doesn't mean they won't try, however, especially if the dead assailant was "underprivileged" (most are, by definition) or a minority - and you are not. The surviving family will come after you and all you own as well. You can count on things getting pretty ugly, and expensive on the legal front for years to come. That's just the way it is.

In the end, however, there is not a jury in the land that will hold you to Head416's standards. There are no laws that will compel them to hold you to those standards, either. His standards are far from "reasonable".

I'm sorry Head416, but you simply could not be more wrong.

You guys can debate this anyway you want, but the best possible solution took place. Sammy and his family are safe. Had Sammy shot and injured the bad guys, it may have been justifiable. The DA would untimately make that decision based upon the evidence presented by the law enforcement agency. The difficulties, time and expense the legal battle would entail would be enormous. I believe it would be winnable, however his family would suffer over the course of years. This is of course based upon the fact that the bad guy did not make entry, despite his attempts. This may be very different once entry was made and whether or not he could articulate the facts as stated in the Penal Code section.


I am not so sure about the response from the police because we do not have enough details. I am interested in the reason the bad guys were released without charges. It seems as if 664/459 PC would fit based on the story told by Sammy.

I shake my head at some of the responses that are so extreme. Sammy had to make a quick, decisive decision on how best to protect himself and his family and did in outstanding fashion. I applaud his maturity and actions.

David

I am no lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I would interpret the Kalifornia law to extend to my private property not just the interior of my house. If someone is in my backyard (fully fenced-in), armed and threatening harm, I sure as hell am not going to do nothing. Run inside and wait until he follows? Yeah, right. Glass doors and windows everywhere. That's a great plan.

Another important note, again per my understanding, is that in Kalifornia we do NOT have any right or obligation to defend anyone with lethal force but ourselves or immediate family members. Next door neighbor girl getting brutally raped or granny down the street getting beaten with a bat...sorry, all you can legally do is call 911 and pray. Do so much as brandish a loaded weapon in an attempt to stop the problem, and you could be jail-bound. What a system we have. And today we just re-elected some of the same fools who make up this crap.

AYFKM?

Attempted home invasion and brazen threats like that and they LET THEM GO? I would definitely find myself a good psychologist to identify the irreperable trauma you've experienced and a lawyer.

That makes me sick.

undoubtedly.