Posted: 1/17/2010 7:40:55 AM EDT
| ... |
|
Yes - you always have the right to self defense. We have a wonderful penal code article that covers self defense - long long before such things became popular. If you're disturbing the peace you can be justifiably slain or just intending to commit a felony. I think #1, #2 covers your walking down the street situation.
California Penal Code 197. Homicide is also justifiable when
committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace. |
|
Self-Defense Against Assault
It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury. It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury. Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death. The reasonable grounds is similar to 49 out of 50 states laws. Only in Texas can you kill anybody - a cop, police officer, fireman responding to a fire on your property, a meter reader attempting to read your meter, the pizza delivery guy delivering a pizza you ordered, the town mayor out gland handing, your brother or even your own children if they cross onto your property after dark - or so they claim. Note that you can also shoot and kill someone assaulting another person not related to you - the general public as an example. That's not common. |
|
Quoted:
Only in Texas can you kill anybody - a cop, police officer, fireman responding to a fire on your property, a meter reader attempting to read your meter, the pizza delivery guy delivering a pizza you ordered, the town mayor out gland handing, your brother or even your own children if they cross onto your property after dark - or so they claim. 
|
|
I'll try to answer that without advising anyone to do anything illegal. Law Enforcement here is usually very good about telling the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Here are a few cases off the top of my head. A man was out walking his dog when he was approached by a gangbanger threatening him with a screwdriver, with his homies backing him up. The man pulled out a gun and killed him in self defense. No charges filed, even though he did not have a carry permit. Another man was a convicted felon acquitted of possession of a firearm by a felon. I know that case because I was on the jury. A felon is allowed to use a gun to protect himself under California law. I know several cops who let people go during the riots who they caught carrying loaded guns around. I carried a loaded gun on my front seat to and from work. The cops attitude was, hey there's a riot out here, you have to protect yourself. None of the Koreans shooting at looters were even prosecuted, much less convicted. A large majority of cops here believe law abiding people should be allowed to carry guns for self-defense. If you hear otherwise, it's bullshit. There is a presumption of fear built into California's self defense law, which favors the one defending himself. The "reasonable man" standard applies, as it does elsewhere. Would it be reasonable to assume that a group of guys harassing you about your gun mean you no harm? The way it was described, they were probably up to no good, and a reasonable person would be in fear. I don't think anyone would fault you for going to condition 1. If you don't make your gun hot, you might lose it and your life, but if you do load it you might end up shooting someone, but then it would be in legal self-defense. |