Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Concealed Carry Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Concealed Carry Discussion General discussion regarding CCW/LTC in California

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-17-2017, 3:38 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 972
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Just shoot them all and let God sort it out.
I only do that if I have my AR pistol in my backpack - which is 12.2% of the time. Then its hells bells - lets party.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-17-2017, 3:43 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Actually if my wife and I were in that restaurant I can tell you exactly how it would go.

Wife "Honey Did you see that man with a gun?"
Me "What Man?"
Wife "The one who took my purse"
Me "Why did you give him your purse?"
Wife "Never Mind"
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-17-2017, 3:59 PM
downdiver2's Avatar
downdiver2 downdiver2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 972
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Actually if my wife and I were in that restaurant I can tell you exactly how it would go.

Wife "Honey Did you see that man with a gun?"
Me "What Man?"
Wife "The one who took my purse"
Me "Why did you give him your purse?"
Wife "Never Mind"
Smart man!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-17-2017, 11:11 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
This is California, and it's likely if you shot the guy without him ever firing a shot you'd end up in Jail. Most CA DAs would love this kind of thing and paint you as some sort of vigilante who thinks he's a cop and who shot first and asked no questions at all. Like you said, this is CA and all......
If you think you are going to jail unless you wait to shoot until after the armed robber gets of the first shot you are right. You aren't going to go to jail but to the morgue. That is utter nonsense
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-18-2017, 12:00 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
If you think you are going to jail unless you wait to shoot until after the armed robber gets of the first shot you are right. You aren't going to go to jail but to the morgue. That is utter nonsense
What's utter nonsense is the belief that you shooting an armed perpetrator who has not actually fired their weapon won't get you prosecuted in this state.

Enjoy your time in jail Rambo.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-18-2017, 12:30 AM
Ora Serrata's Avatar
Ora Serrata Ora Serrata is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,601
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

I don't know about anybody else's CCW training, but when I took mine we saw video footage of armed citizens drawing on and shooting perps only to be shot in the back by the accomplis nobody realized was there.

Don't assume the guy holding up the restaurant is stupid. Bad guys run in packs and chances are it's someone you didn't even notice.

Even if there is no accomplis you can't guarantee your double tap is going to put him down like it does on TV. He could still shoot you or miss and hit the innocent family in the booth next to you. And don't think when the DA gets you in court that innocent family who just lost their mother is going to be on your side. They're likely to say the perp just wanted money and was going to leave peacefully until you went all Rambo.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-18-2017, 2:44 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ora Serrata View Post
I don't know about anybody else's CCW training, but when I took mine we saw video footage of armed citizens drawing on and shooting perps only to be shot in the back by the accomplis nobody realized was there.

Don't assume the guy holding up the restaurant is stupid. Bad guys run in packs and chances are it's someone you didn't even notice.

Even if there is no accomplis you can't guarantee your double tap is going to put him down like it does on TV. He could still shoot you or miss and hit the innocent family in the booth next to you. And don't think when the DA gets you in court that innocent family who just lost their mother is going to be on your side. They're likely to say the perp just wanted money and was going to leave peacefully until you went all Rambo.
Unless you got a public defender with a sever substance abuse problem, that isn't going to happen. He will get a pretrial motion in limine to exclude any testimony or evidence tending to show the intentions of the robber. They are not relevant. What is relevant is if based on what was known to the shooter at the time was it reasonable to believe they or others were at risk of death or serious injury. DA's like to win cases and they like to get reelected. Yes, you may need to lawyer up and in California you may well have to spend some money on them, but any reasonable DA isn't going to take this steaming pile of nonsense to trial. Well, there is always an exception and more so if you are in San Francisco.

So what is your alternative. Blow the guy a kiss and hope he doesn't murder you and your family?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-18-2017, 2:58 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
What's utter nonsense is the belief that you shooting an armed perpetrator who has not actually fired their weapon won't get you prosecuted in this state.

Enjoy your time in jail Rambo.
Absolute FUD.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-18-2017, 3:02 PM
KahrMan's Avatar
KahrMan KahrMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 458
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If he has his gun pointed at people waving it around he is a threat. If he says something iincluding “Or I will shoot you” then there is intent to do harm.
__________________
My God, even the Conservatives are liberal in the messed up State
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-18-2017, 4:27 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KahrMan View Post
If he has his gun pointed at people waving it around he is a threat. If he says something iincluding “Or I will shoot you” then there is intent to do harm.
A statement of intent to do harm is not required. In California, a person may use deadly force in defense of self or others if he or she is in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. There must be actual fear, and that fear must be reasonable under the circumstances. That’s it. A person is not even obligated to retreat in California.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-18-2017, 5:10 PM
jhkrischel jhkrischel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
I need a few more details:

How many cups of Coffee have I had? (Caffeine might effect my answer)

Did I already eat? (cuz if I'm hungry and he's keepin me from my food...)

Did I get desert? (Sugar Rush, See Caffeine above)

Most Import, Who is at the table with me? Wife and Kids?
1) Is there a clear shot with a decent backstop?

2) Can you take that shot when they are *not* looking at you?

Much harder to justify shooting pre-emptively unless you can't answer "yes" to both of those questions.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-18-2017, 5:38 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
Absolute FUD.
Evidence?
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-18-2017, 5:58 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Evidence?
See Post #50. Having a gun pointed at you, or having a robber wave a gun around during a robbery, would place any reasonable person in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 11-18-2017 at 6:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:00 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhkrischel View Post
1) Is there a clear shot with a decent backstop?

2) Can you take that shot when they are *not* looking at you?

Much harder to justify shooting pre-emptively unless you can't answer "yes" to both of those questions.
Common sense would dictate that if you perceive someone to be a threat you dont wait until they look at you if you can help it. I know we are talking CA where the state does not want anyone to have the means to defend them self but I would not want the bad guy to see what I was about to do if I have a choice.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:13 PM
Chapped Hide's Avatar
Chapped Hide Chapped Hide is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 39.6187, -119.6611
Posts: 3,901
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Wink

Pew Pew, one less bad guy
__________________
**** your feelings!
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:34 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ora Serrata View Post
I don't know about anybody else's CCW training, but when I took mine we saw video footage of armed citizens drawing on and shooting perps only to be shot in the back by the accomplis nobody realized was there.

Don't assume the guy holding up the restaurant is stupid. Bad guys run in packs and chances are it's someone you didn't even notice.

Even if there is no accomplis you can't guarantee your double tap is going to put him down like it does on TV. He could still shoot you or miss and hit the innocent family in the booth next to you. And don't think when the DA gets you in court that innocent family who just lost their mother is going to be on your side. They're likely to say the perp just wanted money and was going to leave peacefully until you went all Rambo.
So we should just give up your CCW and stick to pissin our pants?

No thanks, sounds like you need to take another class.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-19-2017, 12:09 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
See Post #50. Having a gun pointed at you, or having a robber wave a gun around during a robbery, would place any reasonable person in fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.
Opinion, not fact, and not evidence.

As I said, none of that will stop a DA from prosecuting you for shooting an armed individual who has not yet fired their weapon. Feel free to take your chances should the occasion ever arise, then let us know how it works out for you. I'll happily hand over my wallet, watch and phone, then just as hapilly testify in court.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member


Last edited by baggss; 11-19-2017 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-19-2017, 12:41 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Opinion, not fact, and not evidence.

As I said, none of that will stop a DA from prosecuting you for shooting an armed individual who has not yet fired their weapon. Feel free to take your chances should the occasion ever arise, then let us know how it works out for you. I'll happily hand over my wallet, watch and phone, then just as hapilly testify in court.
WRONG! Per the hypothetical, (h)aving a gun pointed at you, or having a robber wave a gun around during a robbery" are facts. As I have said, those facts alone are enough that few district attorneys will prosecute if they have any hopes of reelection. Given the facts of the hypo, I am not so sure that the court wouldn't dismiss any charges under PC 1385(a). Even in San Francisco. Not sure about procedure but such a motion should be entertained upon conclusion of the People's case. A really ballsy judge would dismiss sua sponte on the grounds that based on the evidence no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not justifiable.

Last edited by Chewy65; 11-19-2017 at 4:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-19-2017, 1:46 AM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 3,542
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
But what if it was just a prank?
unless im riding the Calico Steam train at Knott's Berry Farm and being confronted by mean dressed in cowboy attire, waving around old style Colts, then, it's not a prank for me
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barang View Post
I! hate! you! FalconLair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JagerDog View Post
I hate you FalconLair!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTROKS
I hate you FalconLair! I double hate you if you get it before Christmas!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gcvt View Post
They hate you FalconLair
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greta
HOW DARE YOU!! I hate you FalconLair
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-19-2017, 1:52 AM
Mark49's Avatar
Mark49 Mark49 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Very So California and Arizona
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

No looking back in your case... If you don't demand they drop their weapon, they would have found it while they went through your person!!!
In your case they could have used your weapon on you and others.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:11 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Opinion, not fact, and not evidence.

As I said, none of that will stop a DA from prosecuting you for shooting an armed individual who has not yet fired their weapon. Feel free to take your chances should the occasion ever arise, then let us know how it works out for you. I'll happily hand over my wallet, watch and phone, then just as hapilly testify in court.
Actually, it’s the law. The evidence is the California Penal Code. You’re presenting your FUD here as though it were fact. You said it was “likely” that a person defending themselves within the law would go to jail, and that “most” DAs would “love” to charge and prosecute a person acting under a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury as some sort of “vigilante.” But I’ve never heard of this actually happening. Can you cite any actual examples of people going to jail in California for the justifiable use of deadly force in self defense? To be more specific to the FUD you’re spreading in this thread, please cite some examples of people going to jail in California for shooting an armed robber during the commission of a robbery just because the armed robber didn’t actually shoot first.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 11-19-2017 at 5:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-19-2017, 9:39 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
Actually, it’s the law. The evidence is the California Penal Code. You’re presenting your FUD here as though it were fact. You said it was “likely” that a person defending themselves within the law would go to jail, and that “most” DAs would “love” to charge and prosecute a person acting under a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury as some sort of “vigilante.” But I’ve never heard of this actually happening. Can you cite any actual examples of people going to jail in California for the justifiable use of deadly force in self defense? To be more specific to the FUD you’re spreading in this thread, please cite some examples of people going to jail in California for shooting an armed robber during the commission of a robbery just because the armed robber didn’t actually shoot first.
So your answer when I essentially ask you to show me where someone has not been prosecuted for something like the above, is to ask me for evidence that they have? Just because you've "never heard of it actually happening" doesn't mean it hasn't and is the same level of FUD that you are accusing me of. You think it won't happen, I think it is likely to. Maybe you can cite some examples yourself.

Some cases where people were prosecuted:

Heres a case in Antioch where a homeowner shot a robber in his garage and was prosecuted: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/cal...case-national/

Another from California Valley: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/lo...e39208950.html

Another from Antioch, a carjacking where the the victim was jailed and then released: http://www.interritusllc.com/single-...ng-SelfDefense

Note that some of these are Home Self Defense cases, yet they were prosecuted. No, I don't know if the first two went to jail, but the mere fact is that they were even prosecuted for an act of defending their own home, much less in a public place.

Additionally, there are differences for shooting inside the home and outside:

Quote:
Outside of Your Home
Self-defense situations can occur anywhere and at any time, and California law recognizes that individuals have the right to defend themselves with deadly force outside the home as well. California Jury Instructions (CALCRIM #505 & #506) describe this act as “justifiable homicide”. These instructions provide juries across the state with a set of circumstances that are supposed to result in an innocent verdict for individuals charged with assault, homicide or other crimes committed during self-defense.

You had a reasonable fear of being injured or killed (YES-in the OPs scenario)

You had the reasonable belief that you needed to use force to protect yourself from being injured or killed (MAYBE-in the OPs scenario, would have to be proven)

You used no amount of force above that which was needed to stop the imminent threat (Open question-in the OPs scenario)
From: http://www.sacramentodefenseattorney...nd-ground-law/

IMO, the last of the 3 is the most likely to cause the issue in the scenario listed by the OP.

Also: this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALCRIM 3470
D. SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF ANOTHER 3470.The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense ofanother) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someoneelse/ [or] <insert name of third party>) was inimminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminentdanger of being touched unlawfully];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonablynecessary to defend against that danger. Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was (imminent danger of bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or]someone else)/[or] an imminent danger that (he/she/[or] someone else)would be touched unlawfully). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonableperson would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendantused more force than was reasonable, the defendant did not act inlawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).
From: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs...3400/3470.html

CALCRIM 505 (Cited above) is worded identically to CALCRIM 3470, but covers JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE vice SELF DEFENSE.


The fact is, most self defense shootings in home are not prosecuted, but there's not a lot out there about self defense shootings outside the home.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member


Last edited by baggss; 11-19-2017 at 10:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-19-2017, 2:12 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
So your answer when I essentially ask you to show me where someone has not been prosecuted for something like the above, is to ask me for evidence that they have? Just because you've "never heard of it actually happening" doesn't mean it hasn't and is the same level of FUD that you are accusing me of. You think it won't happen, I think it is likely to. Maybe you can cite some examples yourself.

Some cases where people were prosecuted:

Heres a case in Antioch where a homeowner shot a robber in his garage and was prosecuted: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/cal...case-national/

Another from California Valley: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/lo...e39208950.html

Another from Antioch, a carjacking where the the victim was jailed and then released: http://www.interritusllc.com/single-...ng-SelfDefense

Note that some of these are Home Self Defense cases, yet they were prosecuted. No, I don't know if the first two went to jail, but the mere fact is that they were even prosecuted for an act of defending their own home, much less in a public place.

Additionally, there are differences for shooting inside the home and outside:



From: http://www.sacramentodefenseattorney...nd-ground-law/

IMO, the last of the 3 is the most likely to cause the issue in the scenario listed by the OP.

Also: this:



From: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs...3400/3470.html

CALCRIM 505 (Cited above) is worded identically to CALCRIM 3470, but covers JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE vice SELF DEFENSE.


The fact is, most self defense shootings in home are not prosecuted, but there's not a lot out there about self defense shootings outside the home.
None of this addresses the use of deadly force in self-defense during the commission of an armed robbery, which by very definition involves the use of force or fear.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-19-2017, 3:42 PM
KahrMan's Avatar
KahrMan KahrMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 458
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
A statement of intent to do harm is not required. In California, a person may use deadly force in defense of self or others if he or she is in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. There must be actual fear, and that fear must be reasonable under the circumstances. That’s it. A person is not even obligated to retreat in California.
Did not mean to say it was required. Upon reflection, isnt’t the perp commiting a felony against you which thereby justifies shooting?
__________________
My God, even the Conservatives are liberal in the messed up State
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-19-2017, 3:51 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor McRifle View Post
None of this addresses the use of deadly force in self-defense during the commission of an armed robbery, which by very definition involves the use of force or fear.
And you've shown me no evidence to support your claim that I am wrong. Cleary you don't want to.

If you had read CALCRIM 3470 or 505 you would see they do in fact pertain to the subject at hand, and 3470 is specific for Self Defense outside of the home. The Fear would not be sufficient to shoot the armed assailant. Remember, you have to convince not just the DA, but at trial a Jury as well, and they are going to be told to use the above guidelines when determining guilt or innocence when claiming SD.

In the OPs scenario, if the assailant hasn't shot anyone, hasn't physically assaulted anyone and is just waiving their gun around and collecting walletts, then I do not believe that shooting them (in the back, in the face, whatever) would stand up in court as "reasonable force". Now, if the assailant pistol whiped someone or otherwise assaulted a person, thats a different scenario.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member


Last edited by baggss; 11-19-2017 at 4:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-19-2017, 4:46 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
If you had read CALCRIM 3470 or 505 you would see they do in fact pertain to the subject at hand, and 3470 is specific for Self Defense outside of the home. The Fear would not be sufficient to shoot the armed assailant. Remember, you have to convince not just the DA, but at trial a Jury as well, and they are going to be told to use the above guidelines when determining guilt or innocence when claiming SD.
You have that convincing part backwards. The People bear the burden of proof and you would know that if you read the last paragraph of 3470. And in the hypothetical poised there clearly is sufficient, if not substantial, evidence to warrant the giving of 3470.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:00 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
In the OPs scenario, if the assailant hasn't shot anyone, hasn't physically assaulted anyone and is just waiving their gun around and collecting walletts, then I do not believe that shooting them (in the back, in the face, whatever) would stand up in court as "reasonable force".
What are you basing your belief on? It's certainly not consistent with controlling law. And how does your belief support your original statement that people who use deadly force to defend their lives or the lives of others during the commission of an armed robbery will "likely" go to jail, or that "most" D.A.s in California would "love" to prosecute people who use deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury during the commission of an armed robbery as some sort of "vigilantes"?
__________________
Anchors Aweigh


Last edited by Mayor McRifle; 11-19-2017 at 5:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-19-2017, 6:46 PM
Maht_g's Avatar
Maht_g Maht_g is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Stanislaus county
Posts: 1,748
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Bad guy with a gun= Im scurred for my life

Scurred= shoot the fugger at first opportunity! If you wait for him to use the gun you waited to long. Mr mayor has it right^^
__________________
"That's more suspicious than a nun doing squats in a cucumber field!"
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-19-2017, 7:21 PM
ACfixer's Avatar
ACfixer ACfixer is offline
Global Warming Enthusiast
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N/E Tennessee
Posts: 5,834
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I'm supposed to hand them my wallet and hope he doesn't shoot me? BS. That is an option available, certainly not a requirement. I'm voting for Mayor McRifle as well, if you are getting robbed at gunpoint you can shoot the mofo.
__________________
Buy made in USA whenever possible.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-19-2017, 7:39 PM
badbot's Avatar
badbot badbot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

WWJWD
true grit the first one opening shot.
here's my wallet and a little something extra.

Hollywood makes everything so easy.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:01 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 6,187
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badbot View Post
WWJWD
true grit the first one opening shot.
here's my wallet and a little something extra.

Hollywood makes everything so easy.
Opening scene of The Shootist not True Grit.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:17 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,875
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
And you've shown me no evidence to support your claim that I am wrong. Cleary you don't want to.

If you had read CALCRIM 3470 or 505 you would see they do in fact pertain to the subject at hand, and 3470 is specific for Self Defense outside of the home. The Fear would not be sufficient to shoot the armed assailant. Remember, you have to convince not just the DA, but at trial a Jury as well, and they are going to be told to use the above guidelines when determining guilt or innocence when claiming SD.

In the OPs scenario, if the assailant hasn't shot anyone, hasn't physically assaulted anyone and is just waiving their gun around and collecting walletts, then I do not believe that shooting them (in the back, in the face, whatever) would stand up in court as "reasonable force". Now, if the assailant pistol whiped someone or otherwise assaulted a person, thats a different scenario.
I'm voting for McRifle's logic. It doesn't matter if the perp hasn't hurt anyone. Justifiable homicide must consist of three things: fear, intent and ability. I fear for my life. He has the intent of hurting people (hence the gun) and he has the ability to hurt people (again, the gun). Your logic dictates that you wait and react upon the perp's action. Sorry, but that may be too little too late. I would shoot the perp the first chance I get. If I go to jail then so be it, but at least my wife and kid will be alive and safe.
__________________
WTB:
2.5” Colt Python
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Colt Series 70 1911
Sig Sauer West German P228
Glock Gen5 19/17/34 MOS

Last edited by phdo; 11-19-2017 at 8:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-20-2017, 12:56 AM
Dellinger's Avatar
Dellinger Dellinger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 629
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Who knows how we would react in this situation. For one, if someone is crazy enough to be walking around a restaurant brandishing a firearm and you don't fear for your life, get checked out. You are in immediate danger of great bodily injury or death... Whatever you chose is justified.
__________________
" A Free People Ought Not Only Be Armed And Disciplined But Should Have Sufficient Arms And Ammunition To Maintain A Status Of Independence From Any Who Might Attempt To Abuse Them, Which Also Includes Their Own Government."
~George Washington~
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-20-2017, 7:20 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Map Maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 3,439
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

OK, after re-reading the CALCRIM pages I'm buying the reasonable fear angle on this one. Mr. McRifle is likely correct, although I still don't know that I would randomly shoot the guy in the OPs scenario.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015

NRA Lifetime Member : CalGuns Lifetime Member : GOA Lifetime Member

Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-20-2017, 7:39 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
So your answer when I essentially ask you to show me where someone has not been prosecuted for something like the above, is to ask me for evidence that they have? Just because you've "never heard of it actually happening" doesn't mean it hasn't and is the same level of FUD that you are accusing me of. You think it won't happen, I think it is likely to. Maybe you can cite some examples yourself.

Some cases where people were prosecuted:

Heres a case in Antioch where a homeowner shot a robber in his garage and was prosecuted: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/cal...case-national/

Another from California Valley: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/lo...e39208950.html

Another from Antioch, a carjacking where the the victim was jailed and then released: http://www.interritusllc.com/single-...ng-SelfDefense

Note that some of these are Home Self Defense cases, yet they were prosecuted. No, I don't know if the first two went to jail, but the mere fact is that they were even prosecuted for an act of defending their own home, much less in a public place.

Additionally, there are differences for shooting inside the home and outside:



From: http://www.sacramentodefenseattorney...nd-ground-law/

IMO, the last of the 3 is the most likely to cause the issue in the scenario listed by the OP.

Also: this:



From: https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs...3400/3470.html

CALCRIM 505 (Cited above) is worded identically to CALCRIM 3470, but covers JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE vice SELF DEFENSE.


The fact is, most self defense shootings in home are not prosecuted, but there's not a lot out there about self defense shootings outside the home.
As stated in your own words

Quote:
there's not a lot out there about self defense shootings outside the home.
there is not a lot out there to support your opinion, yet you expected him to provide proof you were wrong.

Glad to see you conceded his point. I am not sure I would draw or shoot in this scenario either, not from fear of prosecution but more because of potential collateral damage. But in this hypothetical scenario the whole scene is fluid and it wouldn't take much to tip my decision one way or the other.

1 Do I have a clear shot
2 what is behind my target
3 does he attempt to take restaurant manager into the back office
4 Does he pistol whip the guy who responded too slow.
Lots of variables
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-20-2017, 8:29 AM
TurboChrisB's Avatar
TurboChrisB TurboChrisB is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills
Posts: 5,098
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post
When he comes near your table, do you shoot? Or just hand over your stuff and hope he moves on?

Well, you could be like the offduty LEO at the McDonalds in Barstow who confronted a armed robber in a crowded restaurant rather than just being calm and "being a good witness"

Girl Killed in Botched Holdup at McDonald's
Tragedy: Gunman is fatally wounded by off-duty police officer at restaurant in Barstow. Young victim was 9.



http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-...d-s-restaurant
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:19 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Some libtards will argue that no one would have been shot, neither the 9 year old girl or the robber, had the off duty officer not confronted the robber. Possible. It is also possible that a lot more people would have been shot and killed had the officer not acted.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-21-2017, 6:49 AM
bk23103's Avatar
bk23103 bk23103 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,066
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting thread. Reminds me of a scenario that played out in Bakersfield a few months ago. I took the 911 call from one of the customers, after two armed men entered a taco shop just after 9AM. One man held the customers at gunpoint in the dining room while the other entered the back and hit the safe. There's some good video surveillance here:

http://www.kerngoldenempire.com/news...mera/711277276

Personally, I don't know if I could draw and provide effective fire with the guy covering me at the door.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy