• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

what if i shoot someone while robbing me?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ledman5555

Junior Member
I live in california

i was curious what if i shot someone in the head and killed them instantly while they were stealing my stuff and they were on My property? i want to know also the difference in outcome if i was in fear of my life, and if i wasnt in fear of my life...



would i be charged if i wasnt in fear of my life, also what would i be charged with if i was in fear of my life?
 


anearthw

Member
First - there is a huge difference between robbery and burglary. A person on your property and stealing your items without any threat/use of force is not robbery.

You will want to research more about California Penal Code 197. Here's some information:
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue4/documents/9selfdefense.pdf

Shooting someone in "self-defense" is far more complex than a yes or no/"this would happen" answer. I can say however, that no, you cannot shoot someone in California for being on your property and stealing your things if you do not have any fear for your life. (and no, not even in Texas... :cool:)
 

justalayman

Senior Member
California seems to be experiencing a computer issue and I cannot access their codes so, in a general situation. California does not have what is termed "castle doctrine" laws which allow a person to defend their "castle" with lethal force if they believe their safety is threatened. Most states that do no have castle doctrine laws usually require the shooter to actually be subject to a threat to their life or at least a great injury. As such, if somebody was simply stealing property and was not aware of you, did not have a weapon, or did not threaten you, I would suggest that killing them would be a bad idea.

Most states have laws that allow a person to defend themselves with lethal force if threatened with lethal force.


Other than that, without the exact situation and with California being offline, not much else I can tell you.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
A person on your property and stealing your items without any threat/use of force is not robbery.
"On your property" is too vague. A person gathering lumber in a forest you own is probably not an immediate threat on your life. An intruder in your home is.
 

proud_parent

Senior Member
California Penal Code Section 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.
 

ledman5555

Junior Member
hmm

so your saying i cant take out someones knee caps when they or he breaks into my house without permission even though my life isnt threatened?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I live in california

i was curious what if i shot someone in the head and killed them instantly while they were stealing my stuff and they were on My property? i want to know also the difference in outcome if i was in fear of my life, and if i wasnt in fear of my life...
In CA you are permitted to use REASONABLE force to protect you or your property. If you are safe and in a position where no reasonable person would conclude you are in physical danger, then you would not be able to shoot the thief in the head or anywhere else.

While there is a legal presumption here that if someone breaks into your home they are there to do you great harm, this does not mean that in any and all situations you may gun down an intruder.

The difference between justifiable homicide in self defense and murder/manslaughter can be up 25 years or more depending on the details.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
so your saying i cant take out someones knee caps when they or he breaks into my house without permission even though my life isnt threatened?
No, that is not the case.

REASONABLE force can be used if you are in fear for your life (and this fear can be articulated, and a DA or a jury agree with your articulated fear).
 

RRevak

Senior Member
so your saying i cant take out someones knee caps when they or he breaks into my house without permission even though my life isnt threatened?
Taking out someone's knee caps is VERY different from shooting them in the head. Taking out their knee caps might be seen as a "reasonable" amount of force for someone breaking into your home. Shooting them in the head on the other hand would more than likely NOT meet the definition of "reasonable" force.
 
I live in california

i was curious what if i shot someone in the head and killed them instantly while they were stealing my stuff and they were on My property? i want to know also the difference in outcome if i was in fear of my life, and if i wasnt in fear of my life...



would i be charged if i wasnt in fear of my life, also what would i be charged with if i was in fear of my life?
Then YOU WIN !!! No jury would find you guilty of anything in any event. That's my kind of gun control (hitting your target). If you live in Louisiana, your fine .. you can shoot anybody on your land w/o even a warning. A Japanese tourist got lost in LA a few years ago, walked up to a guy's house to ask for directions and a guy shot him right in the face, killing him. The Japenese government was quite pissed to hear no charges were filed. And now, you can find free oil on the beaches so I'm thinking abut moving down there. Only in NYC or Boston or DC would you have a problem cause they don't think we have a right to own a gun.
 

BOR

Senior Member
No, that is not the case.

REASONABLE force can be used if you are in fear for your life (and this fear can be articulated, and a DA or a jury agree with your articulated fear).
Carl, is there a duty to retreat in CA before force can be used? In Ohio, there is none, in a car, on foot or in your home.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Taking out someone's knee caps is VERY different from shooting them in the head. Taking out their knee caps might be seen as a "reasonable" amount of force for someone breaking into your home. Shooting them in the head on the other hand would more than likely NOT meet the definition of "reasonable" force.
Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about so please stop giving advice on this subject. No self-defense expert advocates "shoot to wound". In the real world it simply doesn't work. You aim for center of mass and then keep shooting until the target stops moving. If a person breaks into your home your life is threatened and deadly force is authorized. What scenario could you possibily imagine where a person breaking into your home is not a deadly threat on your life? You do not need to stop and deliberate what constitutes reasonable force.

Under common law tradition at least the "duty to retreat" does not apply in one's own home.
 

proud_parent

Senior Member
506. Justifiable Homicide: Defending Against Harm to Person Within Home or on Property

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) (killed/attempted to kill) to defend (himself/herself) [or any other person] in the defendant’s home. Such (a/an) [attempted] killing is justified, and therefore not unlawful, if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she) was defending a home against <insert name of decedent>, who (intended to or tried to commit ___________ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>/[or] violently[[,] [or] riotously[,]/ [or] tumultuously] tried to enter that home intending to commit an act of violence against someone inside);
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the danger was imminent;
3. The defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;
AND
4. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the 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 violence to (himself/herself/[or] someone else). Defendant&#8217;s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the [attempted] killing was not justified. When deciding whether the defendant&#8217;s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant&#8217;s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of [attempted] (murder/ [or manslaughter).
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions/calcrim_juryins.pdf


...Examples of forcible and atrocious crimes are murder, mayhem, rape and robbery. (See Storey v. State, supra, 71 Ala. 329, 340; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence (1899) p. 122.) In such crimes "from their atrocity and violence human life [or personal safety from great harm] either is, or is presumed to be, in peril" (see United States v. Gilliam, supra, 25 F.Cas. 1319, 1320; State v. Nyland, 47 Wn.2d 240 [287 P.2d 345, 347]; State 479*479 v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117 [92 P. 939, 941]; Perkins on Criminal Law, supra, p. 991).
People v. Ceballos - Google Scholar
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Carl, is there a duty to retreat in CA before force can be used? In Ohio, there is none, in a car, on foot or in your home.
CA has no duty to retreat law, and in your home there is an initial legal presumption that the intruder is there to do you harm.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Shot them in the belly, it hurts more. There's justice and then there's JUSTICE. I can shoot anyone on my land.
No you can't. Well, I suppose you CAN, but it would be unlawful.

In California, a landowner must give any robber whatever he asks for and you must do so with a smile.
Not the law at all.

California might as well go to Mexico, I don't consider this state part of the US.
Good for you. We don't believe in you, either.

States that say you cannot shoot anyone on your land are not respectful of landowner's rights.
Yea, darn it, the kids trespassing on your lawn to get a soccer ball should be killed. Death to them all! :rolleyes:

Don't want to get shot? Then stay off other people's land. People in CA should move out to real american states and leave CA to the illegals. So, no you cannot shoot anyone in CA who is a robber, you must comply with all his requests. If you do not then the robber has the right to sue you for your house & land.
Anyone can sue anyone else for anything in any state. The issue is whether you would win.

And your characterization of CA law is oh so very off base.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top