Is there any evidence this happens with any regularity there?
To quote the current official California jury instructions and legal commentary:
"No Defense for Initial Aggressor: An aggressor whose victim fights back in self-defense may not invoke the doctrine of self-defense..."
If I’m in my home, or car, or whatever - and someone tries to do a home invasion, or carjack me, it’s utter lunacy to expect someone to be all ‘oh no’, and have to give it up unless they want to do so.
I don't feel that we should allow shooting mere thieves. If someone breaks into your garden shed, it is a stretch to say that this crime should carry a death penalty.
I'm not a fan of duty to retreat in defense of habitation (removing "castle doctrine"), however. The sort of people that break into occupied dwellings are not reasonable and don't mean well. A duty to attempt to run away makes that situation tactically difficult when the occupant is already at a tactical disadvantage, not knowing how many attackers there are, where they are, how they are armed, their intentions, etc. It's a well-intentioned law that unfortunately tends to punish the victims of crime either for defence without retreat or by giving criminals an advantage in a confrontation they instigated.
Are you obligated to wait until you have evidence of violent intent to use a gun?
I also predict that this will only be used against poor people defending themselves, and never against rich people defending themselves - just like with pretty much every other such law.
That said, rich people don't usually shoot each other in the same percentages that poor people do...
> >“What this bill is focused on is someone who goes out in public, picks a fight — and when the victim responds — they shoot them and claim self-defense,”
I don't understand how these two sentences are even compatible. What does shooting a burglar / thief has to do with picking a fight in public with someone then shooting them in self defense?