Self-Defense Law

[bigboywasim]

I live in California and I want to know under what conditions and situations is it legal for me to use deadly force. I understand that my life has to be at risk but I want to know specifically. Other state laws are welcomed as well.

[Paco]

The common law rule is that you have a duty to retreat if you are able to do so safely. Most jurisdictions have this (it cuts down on street fights).
Most importantly, the force that is used in self-defense has to be reasonable (and unfortunately that includes proportional) vis-a-vis the threat faced. That is, you can't go and shoot somebody in the face b/c he pinched your girl's ass.
Once you are at home and somebody comes in with the threat of deadly force you are entitled to use deadly force (since you can't retreat from your home!).
If you are in a business that gets you into touchy situations I'd advise looking at your state's penal code. While I practice law at the fed. level you'd be well advised to ask a buddy (over a beer no charge) what are CALIFORNIA'S laws regarding the same. And just b/c you are not criminally liable for an assault and battery doesn't mean you couldn't be slapped with a CIVIL cause of action for the same. There's an old book by Carl Brown called "The Law and Martial Arts" if you're interested in the topic you should take a look at it.

[Garland]

I've always been curious about this one; say somebody with the means to actually do it, threatens to have your family killed....

do you have the right to snuff them out right then and there?

[Sagacious Lu]

I've always been curious about this one; say somebody with the means to actually do it, threatens to have your family killed....

do you have the right to snuff them out right then and there?

Absolutely, just as long as you don't get caught doing it

[Tant01]

I live in California and I want to know under what conditions and situations is it legal for me to use deadly force. I understand that my life has to be at risk but I want to know pacifically. Other state laws are welcomed as well.

This is a very good question! I have stressed the importance of KNOWING the laws regarding use of force since I found the forum. Knowing HOW is not the half of it. Knowing WHEN is much safer. You can only use deadly force when you are in IMMEDIATE fear of serious bodily injury or death. That means you can't kill them for threatening you verbally. If they threaten verbally to kill you "RIGHT NOW" AND you could reasonably assume they have the means and intent to carry out the threat. You would be justified to use deadly force.

Check out Lethal force reality break...

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html

[Tant01]

I've always been curious about this one; say somebody with the means to actually do it, threatens to have your family killed....

do you have the right to snuff them out right then and there?

No. You must be in IMMEDIATE fear. A threat of death at some point in the future does not justify deadly force.

Sadly you need to inform the police and let them deal with it.

[Tant01]

The common law rule is that you have a duty to retreat if you are able to do so safely. Most jurisdictions have this (it cuts down on street fights).
Most importantly, the force that is used in self-defense has to be reasonable (and unfortunately that includes proportional) vis-a-vis the threat faced. That is, you can't go and shoot somebody in the face b/c he pinched your girl's ass.
Once you are at home and somebody comes in with the threat of deadly force you are entitled to use deadly force (since you can't retreat from your home!).
If you are in a business that gets you into touchy situations I'd advise looking at your state's penal code. While I practice law at the fed. level you'd be well advised to ask a buddy (over a beer no charge) what are CALIFORNIA'S laws regarding the same. And just b/c you are not criminally liable for an assault and battery doesn't mean you couldn't be slapped with a CIVIL cause of action for the same. There's an old book by Carl Brown called "The Law and Martial Arts" if you're interested in the topic you should take a look at it.

Good advise!

[Uke]

The common law rule is that you have a duty to retreat if you are able to do so safely. Most jurisdictions have this (it cuts down on street fights).
Most importantly, the force that is used in self-defense has to be reasonable (and unfortunately that includes proportional) vis-a-vis the threat faced. That is, you can't go and shoot somebody in the face b/c he pinched your girl's ass.
Once you are at home and somebody comes in with the threat of deadly force you are entitled to use deadly force (since you can't retreat from your home!).
If you are in a business that gets you into touchy situations I'd advise looking at your state's penal code. While I practice law at the fed. level you'd be well advised to ask a buddy (over a beer no charge) what are CALIFORNIA'S laws regarding the same. And just b/c you are not criminally liable for an assault and battery doesn't mean you couldn't be slapped with a CIVIL cause of action for the same. There's an old book by Carl Brown called "The Law and Martial Arts" if you're interested in the topic you should take a look at it.

I agree. This is excellent advice on how to govern how much force is necessary in hostile situation.

[Paco]

Thanks.
Tant is right in that the WHEN-force-has-to-be-used factor a lot of times outweighs the HOW factor. Remember also that, as in most areas of the law, a judge has to decide based on what a "reasonable person" would have done. And, as I learned since law school, the reasonable person is a big fat boring pussy. I haven't come across a judge who understands the value of a preemptive attack or who casts a friendly eye towards weapons.
The only contrary example I have is when I was doing bail court just starting out in New Jersey. This Asian kid got jumped by three bigger guys (non-Asians), the kid pulled out a knife and wounded (non-fatally) his assailants. When the judge got to the case, he couldn't believe it. He said: "why is he being charged with possession of a deadly weapon? I carry a knife... does that make me a criminal?" He obviously saw that the kid's reaction was proportional to the attack. I love that judge, BTW, he allegedly knocked out a police officer who insulted him in front of his family. If you're lucky enough to have a judge like this, go ahead. Otherwise I wouldn't take my chances.

[Britt]

Before I go any futher, I should say that while I am a lawyer, I am not a California lawyer, and I'm not your lawyer. This is purely for informative purposes and should not be considered legal advice. For legal advice consult a lawyer licensed in you jurisdiction.

Okay. California law requires that an act of self defense must be both (1) honest, and (2) reasonable. This means that you must subjectively believe that you are under a threat of imminent harm, and that belief must be subjectively reasonable. An honest but unreasonable belief is called "imperfect self-defense;" it will mitigate murder down to manslaughter, but won't exonerate you altogether.

The section of California Law dealing with justifiable homicide is as follows:

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 1. HOMICIDE

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.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence ofsuch fears alone.


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 orhousehold, 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.

The kicker, though, is that the amount of force used can only be that which is necessary and must not be excessive, and your idea of what is necessary and the court's idea may not be the same. In a case called People v. Bates, the victim and the defendant were involved in a "tussle" (the court's words) in the kitchen of the defendant's restaurant, and the victim grabbed a knife and stabbed the defendant in the hip. The defendant got the knife away from the victim, but he then proceeded to stab the victim repeatedly in the chest, killing him. The court ruled that "self-defense may be resorted to to repel force, but may not be used to inflict vengence" and found that the defendant used excessive force and was not entitled to a claim of justifiable homicide.

Protecting yourself from imminent assault by your use of a deadly weapon is only justified if you have a subjectively honest and objectively reasonable belief that the force used is reasonably necessary to protect yourself or a third party from either death or "great bodily injury." If you commit homicide with a deadly weapon in self defense, you'll have to show that you honestly and reasonably believed that your use of the deadly weapon was necessary to repel the imminent threat to your life. It's very difficult to say how these will play out in individual circumstances; if you use a deadly weapon to repel an imminent beating with the fists, you might have only a claim of imperfect self defense (honest, but not reasonable if you believed your life was in danger when it wasn't), or might have no claim of self defense at all. If you use a knife to repel an assailant with a knife or gun, obviously your chances of a self defense claim are much better.

There's much, much more to it, of course - people write whole books about this stuff. This is a general overview, but it should give you a very basic idea of the state of the law. I'll add more later if I can think of anything.

[Paco]

Thanks for the info., Britt. What's the state of the law regarding weapons in CA? Does the statute go over specific items (like Puerto Rico) or can it encompass any object which MIGHT be used as a weapon (like New Jersey)?

[Tant01]

Go to...

Thanks for the info., Britt. What's the state of the law regarding weapons in CA? Does the statute go over specific items (like Puerto Rico) or can it encompass any object which MIGHT be used as a weapon (like New Jersey)?

Packing dot ORG

agree to the terms and read up on Ca Law... http://www.packing.org/state/california/

http://www.packing.org/state/california/#statedeadlyforce_law

[thescottishdude]

I've always been curious about this one; say somebody with the means to actually do it, threatens to have your family killed....

do you have the right to snuff them out right then and there?

It depends, if its just talk then you're probobly gonna be put on death row. But if it is a known criminal who has been terrorising you for motnhs then the jury and judge would take his threat as legitimate. That would put you in a whole new ball game, but you'd probobly still do some time.

[tellner]

The Best Advice You'll Get On This Subject

Don't look for legal advice on tha Intrawebs. Look up the statutes in your area. Find an experienced criminal defense lawyer and pay her for an hour's research to get the statute and case law and explain it to you. Get a concealed carry permit - hard in California, but you can get a Utah one pretty easily - and learn from The Man. Massad Ayoob's world-renowned class LFI-1: Judicious Use of Deadly Force will give you an excellent understanding of the subject.