Post by Adam H. KermanPost by BTR1701California 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
(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.
(b) Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a
person...:
(3) When the person was the assailant, engaged in
mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct
reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a
felony or do some great bodily injury
This is the Kyle Rittenhouse clause. They put this in there so that if someone
like Rittenhouse comes to a riot armed, to help defend persons or property in
general, he/she cannot later claim self-defense if they kill rioters who
attack them, because they were "knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely
to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury".
The author of the bill specifically stated this clause is to remove the legal
protection of self-defense when people like Rittenhouse interfere with rioters
and looters. Yet another 'protect the criminal' law. We don't want those poor
looters and rioters to have to suffer anxiety, wondering whether someone might
shoot them while committing their crimes.
except if either of the following circumstances apply:
(A) The person reasonably believed that they were
in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and
had exhausted every reasonable means to escape
such danger other than the use of force likely to cause
death or great bodily injury.
(B) In good faith, the person withdrew from the
encounter with the other assailant or assailants and
indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants
that the person desired to withdraw and terminated
the use of any force, but the other assailant or
assailants continued or resumed the use of force.
This clause seems to indicate that if an attacker breaks into your home, he
can just suddenly say "I give up" and remove your right to self-defense. Left
unanswered is what constitutes "withdrawing from the encounter"? Does he have
to turn and leave the premises, or just say I give up? What if he's still
holding the knife when he says he gives up? Is that a withdrawal from the
encounter?
Regardless, I don't have cameras recording the inside of my home, and as they
tell you when you ride the Pirates of the Caribbean at Disneyland, "dead men
tell no tales", so only I'm going to know whether my home intruder actually
did the "hands-up, don't shoot" act or not.
Post by Adam H. KermanPost by BTR1701https://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?