Bill could redefine self-defense in California(ktla.com)
26 pointsby LinuxBender4 months ago6 comments
  • viccis4 months ago
    >“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,” Zbur told CalMatters.

    Is there any evidence this happens with any regularity there?

    • danielvf4 months ago
      Going out and starting fights is already a self-defense disqualificaiton in Californa.

      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..."

      • euroderf4 months ago
        I read this as, the victim (.e. the initial defender) is free to escalate.
        • lazide4 months ago
          Of course - there is no requirement to retreat. Which makes sense.

          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.

  • avidiax4 months ago
    > "eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property"

    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.

    • lazide4 months ago
      You already can’t use lethal force unless you have a reasonable expectation your life is in danger.
      • ImJamal4 months ago
        How is a person breaking into your house not a reasonable expectation that your life is in danger?
        • lazide4 months ago
          I was refuting the ‘breaking into a shed in your backyard’ example.

          Of course someone doing a home invasion is a credible threat against anyone in the home.

    • zug_zug4 months ago
      Well you normally don't have perfect information. Imagine you're woken up in the middle of the night by a window breaking, you hear somebody coming down the hall, and there's a strange figure in your doorway. In the worst cases you could be moments from death or sexual assault, or perhaps there's no violent intent at all.

      Are you obligated to wait until you have evidence of violent intent to use a gun?

      • pavel_lishin4 months ago
        Shooting an unidentified outline in your bedroom door in the middle of the night is a great way to kill a loved one.
  • curtisblaine4 months ago
    > “would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property,”

    > >“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?

    • polski-g4 months ago
      The author is lying is the explanation. They know what they wrote in the bill and they want it to pass by any means necessary
  • quanto4 months ago
    California is a no-retreat state, a fact that I found surprising given how liberal the state is. This bill attempts to change that (plus more it seems), bringing the matter closer to the ideological stance of the state.
  • yellowapple4 months ago
    "What's this? Bigots are growing increasingly vocal and mask-off with their threats of violence against marginalized groups? Making it illegal for those marginalized groups to defend themselves ought to put a stop to that!" -- California legislators, apparently

    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.

    • coldtea4 months ago
      just like with pretty much every other law in general, so that's a constant.

      That said, rich people don't usually shoot each other in the same percentages that poor people do...

      • yellowapple4 months ago
        > That said, rich people don't usually shoot each other in the same percentages that poor people do...

        Of course not; they have cops and private security to do that for them.

  • exabrial4 months ago
    What in the actual hell