Re: California Moves to Severely Limit the Right of Self-Defense

On 2025-03-02 1:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
 

California bill introduced to change the definition of homicide to make it
even harder to assert a valid claim of self-defense.

 You mean to change the definition of justifiable homicide, applicable to
affirmative defense! The bill doesn't change the definition of homicide,
per se. You left a word out.
 In my reading of the language, it puts a higher burden on the defendant
to prove intent on the part of the perpetrating home invader to commit
a violent act.
 Am I reading this right? It appears to eliminate the affirmative defense
of justifiable homicide in defense of another.
  (b) Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a person in
all of the following cases:
(1) When the person was outside of their residence and knew that
using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could
have been avoided with complete safety by retreating.
 If the father is outside and sees the perpetrator trespassing or
breaking and entering the home, and his loved ones are inside, he cannot
lawfully defend his family. Yeah, he can retreat and not get harmed, but
his concern is preventing injury or death of the rest of his family.
 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1333

 

After armed residents in the Palisades and Altadena were forced (due to the
absence of police patrols) to defend themselves and their homes from hordes of
looters after the fires, our feckless leaders in Sacramento are apparently
very concerned that criminals might get hurt or killed while committing their
crime, so they've introduced AB 1333 to change the official definition of
homicide to to limit the circumstances where self-defense would apply.

 

It's amazing that after what Los Angeles went through with those fires, with
the appalling failure and incompetency of government at all levels, that the
first response of the state legislature is to say, "Gee, maybe we should make
it safer for the looters to ransack people's homes in a disaster area. We'd
hate to see any of them get hurt while doing their looting."

 

Among other things, if this becomes law, you will only be able to use the same
level of force as your attacker. So if someone attacks you with a bat or a
knife and you shoot them, you're a murderer.

 It doesn't address defense of another, unless that's still an
affirmative defense elsewhere in the criminal codd?

As Andy Sipowicz once said on NYPD Blue: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". I think good people will defend their families and then hope that their lawyers and/or a sympathetic jury will find in their favour regardless of the law.
Hopefully, those same good people will also elect politicians to amend the laws so that reasonable self-defense will be allowed but, given that we're talking about California, that may be too much to hope for.
--
Rhino