Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: these things always happen to members with a post count of under 300 But has been a member for over two years.  Not everyone feels like arfcom's their very own little slumber party where every little musing must be aired for mass consumption.  Post count means nothing except maybe you don't have enough to do. Um.  You are wrong.  Do a bit of site research, skooter! Even if the BG had run directly toward the OP, OP would have went to jail.  Yes, I lived in CA for a long time.  It would be hard to convince a CA jury that you did not purposely place yourself in danger.  Hell, it is hard enough for cops to fight BS cases like that......... wtf are you talking about? Post count does seem to be a trend in these sorts of posts.  I am typing slow so you can understand.

To be fair, I've seen that too.  I just get a chip on my shoulder when uber-posters think they represent the pinnacle of human judgment, or its' inverse, that those with low post counts are somehow unschooled yahoos.

Quoted: There's no duty to retreat in CA law, never has been. You're not going to win this one. I know CA self-defense laws and I know my rights as a gunowner. I know where the line is and I know enough not to cross it. Isn't it every gun owners responsibility to know the laws of the state he resides in? CA may have some farked up gun control laws but the self-defense laws are very solid and have been in place a very long time, and they're better than most so-called "free" states, except maybe Texas, where you can shoot somebody for trespassing.

There is a clear line between a duty to retreat (or lackthereof) and putting one's self unnecessarily in harm's way.

Case in point:

Baton Rouge, Lousiana--October 17, 1992--8:30 P.M....

“A Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was searching for a
party he had been invited to. Thinking he had found the house in which
the social would take place, Yoshihiro knocked on the door. Not
knowing that they had the wrong house Yoshihiro and his companion
startled the proprietor. After having the front door shut in their
face the two boys began walking back to Yoshihiro's car. Yoshihiro
Hattori and his friend, Webb Haymaker, then turned back towards the
house upon hearing the carport door open behind them. Instead of
seeing the party's host, these two boys were greeted by a " 'Freeze' "
and a .44 Magnum-carrying Rodney Peairs. Yoshihiro, thinking he had
found the party after all, stepped towards Mr. Peairs and said, "
'We're here for the party' ". Webb Haymaker then found himself
standing over his dying friend, Yoshihiro Hattore, a victim of
unintentional homicide.”

“Yoshihiro Hattori's Parents Awarded $650,000 In Suit.

BATON ROUGE (LA) -- The parents of Yoshihiro Hattori, the Japanese
exchange student killed by a Louisiana homeowner, were awarded
$650,000 in damages and funeral costs last week.

Rodney Peairs, 31, shot and killed Hattori on Oct. 17, 1992, when
Hattori and a friend mistakenly rang Peairs' doorbell while looking
for a Halloween party in the area.

Judge Bill Brown, who heard the civil case without a jury, said there
was "no justification whatsoever" for the killing .”

In Baton Rouge, Rodney Peairs, the homeowner who gunned down Yoshi
Hattori, was indicted by a grand jury. He was charged with
manslaughter and put on trial in May. The jury, apprently convinced
that Peairs was well within his rights to blow away an inquiring
teenager, deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting
him.

No duty to retreat. The shooter ended up being acquitted. But what was the cost of being right? A $650,000 award to the survivor's family in a civil suit for the "unjustified shooting", and lawyer fees for both the civil and criminal case. The moral of this story was when the wife screams "Get the gun!", you ask her WTF is wrong before charging outside of your locked door to take care of business.

Quoted: Point taken. But the fact is, any one of us, in any state, can be sued in civil court for using a gun in self-defense. But that does not automatically preclude us from pulling the trigger when the trigger needs to be pulled. It should make us more aware of what's allowable so that when we do use a gun in self-defense, we're fully in our rights and not in some gray area. Training helps a lot, and how does the saying go, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Very true. The larger point I was making was that the shooter lost in civil court due to his actions, which initially parallel the OP's events very closely.

If I read the OP's story right, he was in his garage with the door open, and the BG was in his driveway. Had the BG charged into the garage, and the OP was in fear for his life, he might have been within his rights to shoot.

Agreed.

The moment the BG walked away and jumped a fence, he was no longer a threat and the OP would not be justified in shooting him.

Yes and no. The argument would likely be made that the moment the homeowner had a chance to get behind the door, the perp was no longer a threat. It was the homeowner's actions to leave the confines of the home that put him in jeopardy, particularly when there are cops on the scene to deal with the perp.

Regarding the Halloween shooting you mention, there was sort of a similar case around here a few years ago. A Halloween partygoer was dressed up as a devil and he pointed a fake plastic gun at a cop looking at him through a window. The cop shot him and killed him. No charges were filed. Given the same situation with the shooter not being a cop, one can only speculate and much depends on the circumstances. But a non-cop may be able to justify it inasmuch as the cop did.

Possibly so, but LEO Joe will be defended by the state, and his actions, criminal and civil, will be scrutinized with the fact his job requires him to put himself into harm's way. Homeowner Harold is going to have to pay to defend himself in both the criminal and civil trial and his actions will be scrutinized, both criminal and civil, with the fact that he has no requirement to leave safety to confront a threatening individual.


Better to be judged by 12 than carried away by six, but it's best to lock the door and post this on Arfcom with a bowl of popcorn in your lap.

You should have racked the slide on the 1911 four or five times. That would have gotten his attention real quick boy!

height=8

Quoted: ...except maybe Texas, where you can shoot somebody for trespassing.

Who told you that? Texas does not allow the use of deadly force against someone for just trespassing.

Quoted: Quoted: ...except maybe Texas, where you can shoot somebody for trespassing. Who told you that? Texas does not allow the use of deadly force against someone for just trespassing.

Usually, statutes like this read something like (in layman's terms) "if you shoot a tresspasser because you feared for your life, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show you DIDN'T fear for your life."  Meaning it is assumed you are telling the truth, rather than assuming you committed murder and forcing you to prove it was a justified shoot.

And then the Joe Schmoe's on the internet take that to mean "I can shoot anyone I want anytime I want for any reason I want, so long as they're on my property."

Quoted: You should have racked the slide on the 1911 four or five times. That would have gotten his attention real quick boy!

i've heard thats even scarier than the sound of a 12 gauge.

Quoted: Quoted: There's no duty to retreat in CA law, never has been. You're not going to win this one. I know CA self-defense laws and I know my rights as a gunowner. I know where the line is and I know enough not to cross it. Isn't it every gun owners responsibility to know the laws of the state he resides in? CA may have some farked up gun control laws but the self-defense laws are very solid and have been in place a very long time, and they're better than most so-called "free" states, except maybe Texas, where you can shoot somebody for trespassing. There is a clear line between a duty to retreat (or lackthereof) and putting one's self unnecessarily in harm's way. Case in point: Baton Rouge, Lousiana--October 17, 1992--8:30 P.M.... “A Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was searching for a party he had been invited to. Thinking he had found the house in which the social would take place, Yoshihiro knocked on the door. Not knowing that they had the wrong house Yoshihiro and his companion startled the proprietor. After having the front door shut in their face the two boys began walking back to Yoshihiro's car. Yoshihiro Hattori and his friend, Webb Haymaker, then turned back towards the house upon hearing the carport door open behind them. Instead of seeing the party's host, these two boys were greeted by a " 'Freeze' " and a .44 Magnum-carrying Rodney Peairs. Yoshihiro, thinking he had found the party after all, stepped towards Mr. Peairs and said, " 'We're here for the party' ". Webb Haymaker then found himself standing over his dying friend, Yoshihiro Hattore, a victim of unintentional homicide.” “Yoshihiro Hattori's Parents Awarded $650,000 In Suit. BATON ROUGE (LA) -- The parents of Yoshihiro Hattori, the Japanese exchange student killed by a Louisiana homeowner, were awarded $650,000 in damages and funeral costs last week. Rodney Peairs, 31, shot and killed Hattori on Oct. 17, 1992, when Hattori and a friend mistakenly rang Peairs' doorbell while looking for a Halloween party in the area. Judge Bill Brown, who heard the civil case without a jury, said there was "no justification whatsoever" for the killing .” In Baton Rouge, Rodney Peairs, the homeowner who gunned down Yoshi Hattori, was indicted by a grand jury. He was charged with manslaughter and put on trial in May. The jury, apprently convinced that Peairs was well within his rights to blow away an inquiring teenager, deliberated for just over three hours before acquitting him. No duty to retreat. The shooter ended up being acquitted. But what was the cost of being right? A $650,000 award to the survivor's family in a civil suit for the "unjustified shooting", and lawyer fees for both the civil and criminal case. The moral of this story was when the wife screams "Get the gun!", you ask her WTF is wrong before charging outside of your locked door to take care of business.

REMEMBER - shootings aren't always about being justified or not - the level of EVIDNENCE is important. The guy lost $650,000 and would have been unharmed if he didn't shoot the kid. By my standards, that is a VERY BAD SHOOT.

He was not convicted by the jury because there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (95-99%?) that he committed a crime. Not necessarily because the jury thought it was "justified." Even in an affirmative defense where we say the defense has the burdern of proof, the prosecution still has to overcome what they present - they may have not done a good job.

There was a preponderance of the evidence (51%) in a civil trial that he should NOT have pulled the trigger. I doubt that was hard to reach in this instance.

In other words - just because a jury find you NG, doesn't mean your shoot was "good" or "justified."

What part of the city do you live in?


ETA

Quoted: Can you shoot in that situation? I don't think you can...

Not if the suspect is retreating. Retreating = no threat to you. (Unless you can PROVE that he's retreating to arm himself.)

Does anybody know if subofcali would have ordered the perp to the ground and if he didn't comply and nail him say in the thigh with a rubber baton or bean bag round to subdue him, is that legal?

In the PRK, Baton requires "use of force" class and may only be possessed by police or security, and as for rubber bullets, I'm not sure if they are legal for civilian use. (I'm a former PRK denizen and security officer.)
Someone once told me (don't know if it is true) that if you deliberately shoot to wound (i.e. shoot 'em in the leg) rather than shoot to kill (i.e. in the torso), you can be found guilty by reason that you used a deadly weapon in a non-deadly manner, and therefore didn't consider yourself in a deadly encounter. Sounds about right for Kalifornia.

There's no duty to retreat in CA law, never has been. You're not going to win this one. I know CA self-defense laws and I know my rights as a gunowner. I know where the line is and I know enough not to cross it.

Here's a perfect example of the difference between statutory law and case law. Statutory laws are what's written down, and are most often quoted by laymen; case law evolves from statutory law, and is most often quoted by attorneys in a courtroom setting. Case law is where most people get in trouble when trying to defend themselves; a solid knowledge of case law, and ability to apply same, is what you pay a GOOD attorney for. Ultimately, it comes down to your attorney's ability to argue in front of a particular judge.

No duty to retreat. The shooter ended up being acquitted. But what was the cost of being right? A $650,000 award to the survivor's family in a civil suit for the "unjustified shooting", and lawyer fees for both the civil and criminal case.  Themoral of this story was when the wife screams "Get the gun!", you ask her WTF is wrong before charging outside of your locked door to take care of business.

Very good point. It illustrates the need for an "emergency drill," in which any member of the family can call, "Code Red" and a pre-determined set of actions takes place. In  subjectofcalifornia's case, wife opens the safe; son takes the rear entrance (preferably with #4 buck shot), husband takes the front door and THE PERSON WHO INITIATES THE ALARM retreating into the house, and telling everyone what the emergency is.  

However, in subjectofcalifornia's case, it seems that the BG was already on his property and possibly posing a threat. The garage door was open, providing an easy entry into his home; possibly other entries were unsecured.