Buckshot vs. Birdshot for home defense
- Thread starter Helwan
- Start date
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Sure Flordia, hey OJ likes it.
Roy you still here, good for you.
Lead I agree with you on some of your stuff. But I just don't believe you are who you say.
Also It is a crime scene... The Police will work harder to convict you, if they think you murdered him. Only OJ and some others are that lucky. High profile.
Believe me you are wrong in the way you think and speak. It is funny when an officer figures you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes they dig in and go for you.
Harley
Edit: If you think OJ was innocent maybe you should talk to his neighbors.
They bought the Rockingham estate and it is now nothing but weeds and open ground. The neighbors all knew he did it. Maybe you read about it?
Roy you still here, good for you.
Lead I agree with you on some of your stuff. But I just don't believe you are who you say.
Also It is a crime scene... The Police will work harder to convict you, if they think you murdered him. Only OJ and some others are that lucky. High profile.
Believe me you are wrong in the way you think and speak. It is funny when an officer figures you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes they dig in and go for you.
Harley
Edit: If you think OJ was innocent maybe you should talk to his neighbors.
They bought the Rockingham estate and it is now nothing but weeds and open ground. The neighbors all knew he did it. Maybe you read about it?
GunsnRovers
New member
California penal code
Here's pertinent info straight from the California Penal Code. 197 is good and then read 198.5.
California's Castle Doctrine is alive, well, and strong thank you very much.
-------
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 of
such 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 or
household, 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.
199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
Here's pertinent info straight from the California Penal Code. 197 is good and then read 198.5.
California's Castle Doctrine is alive, well, and strong thank you very much.
-------
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 of
such 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 or
household, 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.
199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and
discharged.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Most states including Colorado, Flordia, and yes, Commifornia and many other states give their citizens the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they are being attacked.
If you think about it, if the penal code gives you the right to defend yourself with a gun in certain situations, it must IMPLICITLY give you the right to take a life. There can only be two situations:
1. No justification to use lethal force
2. Justification to use lethal force up to and including killing in self defense
a) If you use buckshot he'll likely die immediately with no follow up necessary
b) if you use birdshot, he could possibly survive long enough to give a fabricated version to the police; or it may take several shots to kill him.
There is no middle ground. In situation 2, if the perp lives, he's lucky. You're better off if he dies before speaking to the cops. You're worse off if you have to shoot him multiple times, IMO. Best case scenario is that he breaks in and is threatening you with a weapon, BAMB one shot and he drops dead in his tracks. Worst case is that you have to shoot him multiple times with birdshot b/c it's ineffective.
If you think about it, if the penal code gives you the right to defend yourself with a gun in certain situations, it must IMPLICITLY give you the right to take a life. There can only be two situations:
1. No justification to use lethal force
2. Justification to use lethal force up to and including killing in self defense
a) If you use buckshot he'll likely die immediately with no follow up necessary
b) if you use birdshot, he could possibly survive long enough to give a fabricated version to the police; or it may take several shots to kill him.
There is no middle ground. In situation 2, if the perp lives, he's lucky. You're better off if he dies before speaking to the cops. You're worse off if you have to shoot him multiple times, IMO. Best case scenario is that he breaks in and is threatening you with a weapon, BAMB one shot and he drops dead in his tracks. Worst case is that you have to shoot him multiple times with birdshot b/c it's ineffective.
GunsnRovers
New member
Leadcounsel, thanks for amending your post. We PRK inhabitants get a lot of bad press. It's sad when a lot of the bad press comes from our own citizens who would do well to know the laws that effect them.
OneInchGroup
New member
bucks, Birds, Castles, and now Counsels
Hiya Lead,
We agree near 100%. I'm not too keen on going to trial after one of these gunfights where hopefully I avoided getting shot but the BG got a facefull of birdshot too far away to be fatal, or had that "psychic" moment as the trigger pulled giving him JUST ENOUGH TIME to twist around so it looks like he's shot from behind running away. Either way, there you are, months later, facing a jury you have to convince that this horribly shot up poor soul was actually the one at fault.
Noticed the California penal code talks about a list of conditions under which I"d have to be found Not Guilty AT THE TRIAL. Given what I've seen just on this thread, let alone in the rest of my experience, there is NO way I want to go to trial for ANYTHING. Happily the Florida law that the NRA and Jeb Bush (Brother of the Great Satan, George) got enacted does not require any trial to take place at all, if the officers handling the investigation decide to rule it a good shooting per that law.
Dead BG, one load of buckshot in the chest, lying in the smashed in doorway to the upstairs bedroom, in Florida? Priceless.
Same Scenario where I live in Maryland, probably $20,000.00 in legal fees.
Same BG in MD with multiple birdshot wounds, and still alive to argue, could be $500,000.00 and STILL I could go to jail for a good long time.
Birdshot is for the birds. So is the legal status of an armed citizen in Maryland.
Hiya Lead,
We agree near 100%. I'm not too keen on going to trial after one of these gunfights where hopefully I avoided getting shot but the BG got a facefull of birdshot too far away to be fatal, or had that "psychic" moment as the trigger pulled giving him JUST ENOUGH TIME to twist around so it looks like he's shot from behind running away. Either way, there you are, months later, facing a jury you have to convince that this horribly shot up poor soul was actually the one at fault.
Noticed the California penal code talks about a list of conditions under which I"d have to be found Not Guilty AT THE TRIAL. Given what I've seen just on this thread, let alone in the rest of my experience, there is NO way I want to go to trial for ANYTHING. Happily the Florida law that the NRA and Jeb Bush (Brother of the Great Satan, George) got enacted does not require any trial to take place at all, if the officers handling the investigation decide to rule it a good shooting per that law.
Dead BG, one load of buckshot in the chest, lying in the smashed in doorway to the upstairs bedroom, in Florida? Priceless.
Same Scenario where I live in Maryland, probably $20,000.00 in legal fees.
Same BG in MD with multiple birdshot wounds, and still alive to argue, could be $500,000.00 and STILL I could go to jail for a good long time.
Birdshot is for the birds. So is the legal status of an armed citizen in Maryland.
Replies
GUNSNROVER
That is the penal code I found. Read once, read it a hundred times, it is vague. Our DA's office would not comment on it, they told me they can't. Our sheriff did. They agree it is not written very clear. They told me that the deputies and detectives often debate the exact meaning on this code during investigations. Still, irregardless, the DA has final authority.
LEADCOUNSEL
You are right, most states and counties give citizens certain rights to defend themselves. I personally think that we don't have enough of them. However, here in California, our penal code, as you can see above is vague. This leaves the prosecutors with a lot of latitude. You have the right to defend yourself, and the DA has the right to pursue criminal investigations and prosecution against you. The detective I spoke to, told me that some shootings that the Sheriff's office deemed to be justifiable, were taken to court by our DA's office. In some of those cases the shooter was found guilty and jailed.
GUNSNROVER
That is the penal code I found. Read once, read it a hundred times, it is vague. Our DA's office would not comment on it, they told me they can't. Our sheriff did. They agree it is not written very clear. They told me that the deputies and detectives often debate the exact meaning on this code during investigations. Still, irregardless, the DA has final authority.
LEADCOUNSEL
You are right, most states and counties give citizens certain rights to defend themselves. I personally think that we don't have enough of them. However, here in California, our penal code, as you can see above is vague. This leaves the prosecutors with a lot of latitude. You have the right to defend yourself, and the DA has the right to pursue criminal investigations and prosecution against you. The detective I spoke to, told me that some shootings that the Sheriff's office deemed to be justifiable, were taken to court by our DA's office. In some of those cases the shooter was found guilty and jailed.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Roy,
In my earlier post, I gave 2 situations.
1. No justification for lethal force;
2. Justification for lethal force.
The reason that people are prosecuted isn't because of a subset of the 2nd situation, it's because they were in the 1st situation. Make sure that if you draw on someone, you are in the 2nd situation and you'll be fine. I like states like Colorado which basically give you the right to draw on any uninvited intruder in your home, so you are almost always automatically in the 2nd situation.
In the CA penal code cited above, there is no ambiguity that a homeowner can use lethal force in defense of his life in his home or to prevent a violent felony in his home.
In my earlier post, I gave 2 situations.
1. No justification for lethal force;
2. Justification for lethal force.
The reason that people are prosecuted isn't because of a subset of the 2nd situation, it's because they were in the 1st situation. Make sure that if you draw on someone, you are in the 2nd situation and you'll be fine. I like states like Colorado which basically give you the right to draw on any uninvited intruder in your home, so you are almost always automatically in the 2nd situation.
In the CA penal code cited above, there is no ambiguity that a homeowner can use lethal force in defense of his life in his home or to prevent a violent felony in his home.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Oneinchgroup:
I don't see where we disagree.... seems like we are on the same page. The only good BG is a dead BG in my opinion.
As others said, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
If legal aftermath is the main concern, I have some suggestions. Move to a gun friendlier state or pressure your representatives to adopt better laws. Make sure the BG isn't around to testify against you or even bring a lawsuit. I'm sure many BG's don't have the resources to hire a lawyer, family concerned enough about it, and it might be tough to find a lawyer to sue you on a contingency basis.
I don't see where we disagree.... seems like we are on the same page. The only good BG is a dead BG in my opinion.
As others said, I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
If legal aftermath is the main concern, I have some suggestions. Move to a gun friendlier state or pressure your representatives to adopt better laws. Make sure the BG isn't around to testify against you or even bring a lawsuit. I'm sure many BG's don't have the resources to hire a lawyer, family concerned enough about it, and it might be tough to find a lawyer to sue you on a contingency basis.
Leadcouncel
You are honestly telling me that the above referenced California Penal Code is not vague. You are telling me that our sheriff's detectives are wrong in finding it vague. We need you to run for public office here in California. You could fix our legal systme in no time at all. Should we warn Arnold?
Also, if you do not kill someone, homicide becomes a mute point. After all, a person must be dead for any type of homicide determination.
You are honestly telling me that the above referenced California Penal Code is not vague. You are telling me that our sheriff's detectives are wrong in finding it vague. We need you to run for public office here in California. You could fix our legal systme in no time at all. Should we warn Arnold?
Also, if you do not kill someone, homicide becomes a mute point. After all, a person must be dead for any type of homicide determination.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Roy,
The standard of reasonable doubt is the burden of proof the DA has to meet to convict you of a crime, agreed?
Okay, here are two scenarios.
1. You and BG both give conflicting stories to the police. BG is a witness for the prosecution, and has a maiming or disriguring injury and gains sympathy from the jury. BG's story is a complete lie, but he states that he had car problems and needed shelter from the cold weather and just came inside your house to warm up and gains sympathy from the jury.
2. YOU are the only witness and give the police only ONE side of the story, the truth. BG broke into your home armed with a weapon and you shot and killed in self defense.
The fact is, if a DA is presented with both scenarios, he would likely give serious consideration for prosecuting the first (but may not); however, he would be a fool to attempt to prosecute the second. In either situation, you'd probably win. However to win the first situation would require a trial and significant $. To win the second may not require much $ at all after the preliminary hearing or grand jury because it'll likely get dropped.
Anyway, this is very off topic. My suggestion is use the most effective weapon at all household ranges, shoot to stop the bad guy only if he's unlawfully threatening you, and you'll be fine. Don't shoot to wound, don't pull your gun if you don't intend to shoot, and don't speak ot the police.
PS - Harley, I really don't care if you agree with me or think I'm not who I say I am.
The standard of reasonable doubt is the burden of proof the DA has to meet to convict you of a crime, agreed?
Okay, here are two scenarios.
1. You and BG both give conflicting stories to the police. BG is a witness for the prosecution, and has a maiming or disriguring injury and gains sympathy from the jury. BG's story is a complete lie, but he states that he had car problems and needed shelter from the cold weather and just came inside your house to warm up and gains sympathy from the jury.
2. YOU are the only witness and give the police only ONE side of the story, the truth. BG broke into your home armed with a weapon and you shot and killed in self defense.
The fact is, if a DA is presented with both scenarios, he would likely give serious consideration for prosecuting the first (but may not); however, he would be a fool to attempt to prosecute the second. In either situation, you'd probably win. However to win the first situation would require a trial and significant $. To win the second may not require much $ at all after the preliminary hearing or grand jury because it'll likely get dropped.
Anyway, this is very off topic. My suggestion is use the most effective weapon at all household ranges, shoot to stop the bad guy only if he's unlawfully threatening you, and you'll be fine. Don't shoot to wound, don't pull your gun if you don't intend to shoot, and don't speak ot the police.
PS - Harley, I really don't care if you agree with me or think I'm not who I say I am.
OneInchGroup
New member
Buckshot and Why the Lawyers need it too...
Lead,
Like I said earlier, we are 100% on the same page as to tactics and the way the after action situation needs to be planned for well in advance. I was just pointing out that the PRM is almost as gun-owner phobic as Massachusetts, and there is a real risk of the State's Attorney filing suit against a homeowner in these cases even if the BG is dead and no one else gives a rip about the whole thing.
It's kind of a sport with the State's Attorney here to file against business owners who use deadly force to protect their businesses, homeowners resisting home invasion, women who shoot rapists, and so forth. Evidently not enough gang violence, organized crme, or bank robberies around here to keep those guys occupied.
Seems almost like a societal thing, State and City and County prosecutors figuring a firearms case is always good for their reputation for beng tough on crime, usually the "perpetrator is just an average white guy, so no race overtones to worry about, and few homeowners have the connections to hire hit men if the trial goes against them, so its a low risk, high scoring potential hobby for the prosecutors.
No "regular guy" is safe around here.
Lead,
Like I said earlier, we are 100% on the same page as to tactics and the way the after action situation needs to be planned for well in advance. I was just pointing out that the PRM is almost as gun-owner phobic as Massachusetts, and there is a real risk of the State's Attorney filing suit against a homeowner in these cases even if the BG is dead and no one else gives a rip about the whole thing.
It's kind of a sport with the State's Attorney here to file against business owners who use deadly force to protect their businesses, homeowners resisting home invasion, women who shoot rapists, and so forth. Evidently not enough gang violence, organized crme, or bank robberies around here to keep those guys occupied.
Seems almost like a societal thing, State and City and County prosecutors figuring a firearms case is always good for their reputation for beng tough on crime, usually the "perpetrator is just an average white guy, so no race overtones to worry about, and few homeowners have the connections to hire hit men if the trial goes against them, so its a low risk, high scoring potential hobby for the prosecutors.
No "regular guy" is safe around here.
Boy, it's real obvious who's "seen the ghost" and who has only fired on somebody with a keyboard and a monitor. I don't think I'd want to ride the river with some of you.
...they better end up in a box...
...use buckshot he'll likely die immediately with no follow up necessary...
...BAMB one shot and he drops dead in his tracks...
...the only good BG is a dead BG...
I bet you, that who ever said all this has never shot at, let alone killed anyone!
...they better end up in a box...
...use buckshot he'll likely die immediately with no follow up necessary...
...BAMB one shot and he drops dead in his tracks...
...the only good BG is a dead BG...
I bet you, that who ever said all this has never shot at, let alone killed anyone!
IF someone ever breaks into my house they will either have to come through the one front window, the front door, or break down/climb over the 6 foot privacy fence to go through a rear window/door. from the front door to the street is 50 feet. at night inside the house, if my dog hears someone walking down the street he barks. if someone breaks into my home he will bark. as I said, I will not be finding out their intent, then go back to the bedroom and get the gun, then tell them I am armed etc. I will close and lock the bedroom door as my wife dials 911 and then our neighbor who is a state cop (if he is home he will be in our house in 2 minutes). I will inform the intruder that I am armed, the police are on their way (sheriffs office and state highway patrol regional office are less than 5 minutes away) and that if he/she presses my hand I will fire.
I dont know any example or sites where I could find examples of our state laws but my neighbor (the state cop) has informed me that the plan he helped me come up with (he one I just explained) is the safest course of action. he has personally been involved in several home invasion shootng cases, one where someone broke into a house and his friends testified that it was a bet/dare etc and all he was doing was breaking in and stealing one or two small items to prove that he did it. the homeowner shot and killed the teenaged intruder beleiving that their life was in danger. the courts did not charge them with a crime.
I also know that if someone were to break into my house by punching through a window and then cut their hand they could sue me. if someone breaks into my home holding a loaded gun in their hand and my dog bites them I could be sued.
I WILL NOT go looking for an intruder, I in fact will try to prevent them from getting to ME. but if they do after I have warned them, then I will fire with the intent to kill them. the last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone (okay...maybe my mother in law) but if it comes down to them or me and/or my wife, I am not giving them the chance. would birdshot kill them? maybe. would buckshot kill them? most likely. I would rather them dead than me or my wife dead because I only wounded them and they continued to attack.
would I be convicted in a criminal court after the situation described above? from what I have been told by professionals in my area...no unless I deviated in some way from that plan such as...they run after I say I have a gun and police are coming and I chase them down and shoot/wound/kill them. would I be sued by the intruders family? maybe, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. I would rather go through a civil lawsuit than know that my wife is dead, or get killed myself, or both. I can afford a lawyer if the situation arises. my life and my wifes are more valuable than the life of someone who is trying to kill us. the things in the rest of the house are not nearly valuable enough to risk it.
I dont know any example or sites where I could find examples of our state laws but my neighbor (the state cop) has informed me that the plan he helped me come up with (he one I just explained) is the safest course of action. he has personally been involved in several home invasion shootng cases, one where someone broke into a house and his friends testified that it was a bet/dare etc and all he was doing was breaking in and stealing one or two small items to prove that he did it. the homeowner shot and killed the teenaged intruder beleiving that their life was in danger. the courts did not charge them with a crime.
I also know that if someone were to break into my house by punching through a window and then cut their hand they could sue me. if someone breaks into my home holding a loaded gun in their hand and my dog bites them I could be sued.
I WILL NOT go looking for an intruder, I in fact will try to prevent them from getting to ME. but if they do after I have warned them, then I will fire with the intent to kill them. the last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone (okay...maybe my mother in law) but if it comes down to them or me and/or my wife, I am not giving them the chance. would birdshot kill them? maybe. would buckshot kill them? most likely. I would rather them dead than me or my wife dead because I only wounded them and they continued to attack.
would I be convicted in a criminal court after the situation described above? from what I have been told by professionals in my area...no unless I deviated in some way from that plan such as...they run after I say I have a gun and police are coming and I chase them down and shoot/wound/kill them. would I be sued by the intruders family? maybe, anyone can sue anyone else for anything. I would rather go through a civil lawsuit than know that my wife is dead, or get killed myself, or both. I can afford a lawyer if the situation arises. my life and my wifes are more valuable than the life of someone who is trying to kill us. the things in the rest of the house are not nearly valuable enough to risk it.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Indeed,
I should not be giving my "novice" legal advice to some of you who are clearly hardened killers and legal experts....
I'm merely stating a few things:
1. It's clear that buckshot is much more lethal than birdshot at any distance based on ample evidence; most people will immediately go down with buck but the same isn't true with birdshot;
2. A dead BG cannot testify or give his version but a living one can;
3. A District Attorney operates in the real world and must follow the law. If he doesn't he risks having a wrongful prosecution case filed against him AND losing his job and ruining his career. You better believe that if the DA attempted to prosecute me for defending my home from an armed BG, his office would have a wrongful prosecution lawsuit slapped against him immediately.
4. Living BG's can bring lawsuits for assault with a deadly weapon. While dead ones' cannot and their estates can, it's highly unlikely given that he cannot testify nor give his side of the story.
That's it from me. No longer interested in this dead horse of a threat. Good luck to you all.
I should not be giving my "novice" legal advice to some of you who are clearly hardened killers and legal experts....
I'm merely stating a few things:
1. It's clear that buckshot is much more lethal than birdshot at any distance based on ample evidence; most people will immediately go down with buck but the same isn't true with birdshot;
2. A dead BG cannot testify or give his version but a living one can;
3. A District Attorney operates in the real world and must follow the law. If he doesn't he risks having a wrongful prosecution case filed against him AND losing his job and ruining his career. You better believe that if the DA attempted to prosecute me for defending my home from an armed BG, his office would have a wrongful prosecution lawsuit slapped against him immediately.
4. Living BG's can bring lawsuits for assault with a deadly weapon. While dead ones' cannot and their estates can, it's highly unlikely given that he cannot testify nor give his side of the story.
That's it from me. No longer interested in this dead horse of a threat. Good luck to you all.
Leadcouncel
So the DA's position is apolitical. Do you know how the chief prosecutor gets his or her job? I'll give you a hint. They are elected. They are politicans and some will do what it takes to be reelected.
Lets say you live in a culturally diverse area. You shoot a punk teenager in your home that is a member of a "special" group. Your DA is coming up for election in a tight race. Your shooting had better been textbook righteous.
I realize that there are states and regions that differ in how they look at justifiable homicide. Even here in California, it differs by county. I realize that the sterotype of us Californians is that of a bunch of liberal do gooders. Some areas of our state fit that profile. But we have some rural counties that are every bit as conservative as any area in this country.
I know that in the San Francisco area, if you shoot someone, they had better have been Osama's evil brother.
So the DA's position is apolitical. Do you know how the chief prosecutor gets his or her job? I'll give you a hint. They are elected. They are politicans and some will do what it takes to be reelected.
Lets say you live in a culturally diverse area. You shoot a punk teenager in your home that is a member of a "special" group. Your DA is coming up for election in a tight race. Your shooting had better been textbook righteous.
I realize that there are states and regions that differ in how they look at justifiable homicide. Even here in California, it differs by county. I realize that the sterotype of us Californians is that of a bunch of liberal do gooders. Some areas of our state fit that profile. But we have some rural counties that are every bit as conservative as any area in this country.
I know that in the San Francisco area, if you shoot someone, they had better have been Osama's evil brother.
Harley Quinn
Moderator
Lead Council
I checked your profile it is as empty as some of your statements.
I feel as always same o same o.
Give me a different scenerio on a different post and I will continue to agree to disagree or disagree to agree.
Hi Roy I have been reading my 2004 P C and I am as concerned as you.
In the good old bad days it was very clear that they were out to get the shooter, still is. Vague is not to friendly of a word when you are at the end of a rope and going down for the last count. Especially in the voting season, I feel the best thing is to keep all of your ducks in a row, cross your t's and dot your i's. Go with buckshot as a police and keep it loaded with birdshot as a citizen.
Question:
When you shot did you mean to kill this person? No your honor I was just trying to stop him. Thank you Mr Quinn... Next day... How does the jury find Mr Quinn???
Not Guilty your honor by reason of sanity.
Harley
I checked your profile it is as empty as some of your statements.
I feel as always same o same o.
Give me a different scenerio on a different post and I will continue to agree to disagree or disagree to agree.
Hi Roy I have been reading my 2004 P C and I am as concerned as you.
In the good old bad days it was very clear that they were out to get the shooter, still is. Vague is not to friendly of a word when you are at the end of a rope and going down for the last count. Especially in the voting season, I feel the best thing is to keep all of your ducks in a row, cross your t's and dot your i's. Go with buckshot as a police and keep it loaded with birdshot as a citizen.
Question:
When you shot did you mean to kill this person? No your honor I was just trying to stop him. Thank you Mr Quinn... Next day... How does the jury find Mr Quinn???
Not Guilty your honor by reason of sanity.
Harley
GunsnRovers
New member
A) I don't really care what a sherrif or deputy has to say about the Penal Code. The police arrest. The DA files charges. The concern is with the DA.
B) I'm not a legal expert, but I fail to see ambiguity in 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 or
household, 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.
If you wake up at 2AM and find Billy Bad Guy in your living room, it's going to take one hell of a DA to convince one heck of a jury that you didn't have reasonable fear of imminent peril for yourself or your family. The penal code already dictates that I, Henry Homeowner, is presumed to have that reasonable fear. The DA will have to prove that such fear did not exist. That should prove a very interesting on his part. Frankly, I'm more then willing to take up that risk and will defend my home to the upmost of my ability.
Having patterned my shotguns and practiced with them reguarly, I load them with Hornady Tap reduced recoil 8 pellet 00 buck. Hopefully, I'll never have to see what the results are.
B) I'm not a legal expert, but I fail to see ambiguity in 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 or
household, 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.
If you wake up at 2AM and find Billy Bad Guy in your living room, it's going to take one hell of a DA to convince one heck of a jury that you didn't have reasonable fear of imminent peril for yourself or your family. The penal code already dictates that I, Henry Homeowner, is presumed to have that reasonable fear. The DA will have to prove that such fear did not exist. That should prove a very interesting on his part. Frankly, I'm more then willing to take up that risk and will defend my home to the upmost of my ability.
Having patterned my shotguns and practiced with them reguarly, I load them with Hornady Tap reduced recoil 8 pellet 00 buck. Hopefully, I'll never have to see what the results are.