• Last Call Guest on these Group Buy Deal Items from Baja Designs
  • We're moving data around, images may be off/on over the next few hours. Nothing is lost aaand no ... Nothing will Change Fo2

The *Official* "That's Methed up" thread.

Remember that similar case in Ohio (I think)?

1776176838035.png
 
Stuck said:
How the **** is he not dead?
Click to expand...
From what I'm gathering about the story is the homeowner was interacting with crazy dude via the Ring camera and wasn't actually home. He came home (because of the Ring camera conversation) to find crazy had broken in through a sliding glass door. Giant shovel as chosen weapon would also indicate homeowner owned no firearms.

I know in my area, at most homes, crazy dude would have been auditioning for "pink mist #1", but some states/counties in this country no longer believe in being able to protect yourself / yours. Given that he had to come home in order to confront the crazy in many states would be grounds for indictment (it's not "self-defense" if you drive to where the guy is) unless homeowners' wife or kids were home when crazy showed up.
 
BDK said:
His wife and five year old daughter were hiding in the garage. It occurred in Fairfield, California, which explains why the dudes not dead, and why the home owner showed up before the police.
Click to expand...
Now that's legit ****ed. I'd be headed home at a very unsafe pace............But I'm in KS and could "do" something about it once I got there.
 
Considering the facts that the home owner must not have owned a gun and would probably have been arrested for murder if he had owned one, or even laid a hand on crazy dude. He actually did a pretty good job of talking crazy dude down and got him out of the house.

It would have ended very different at my house, cause freedom, but I give him credit.
 
BDK said:
His wife and five year old daughter were hiding in the garage. It occurred in Fairfield, California, which explains why the dudes not dead, and why the home owner showed up before the police.
Click to expand...

California Penal Code 198.5 PC spells out the state’s Castle Doctrine. In general, under California law, people in their home may lawfully kill or injure intruders in their home if the following three elements are true:

The intruder or burglar unlawfully and forcibly enters or attempts to enter the residence;
The resident reasonably believed that the intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered or was entering the residence; and
The intruder was not a member of the household or family.1
In short, California law presumes that residents have a reasonable fear of imminent peril or death when the above three conditions have been met. And therefore, it may be a justifiable homicide if the resident kills the intruder. The resident does not need to show the court that the intruder had a weapon, attacked anyone, or made any threats.2

Note that an unenclosed front porch does not count as a residence under California’s castle doctrine. So even if an intruder enters an unenclosed front porch with violent intentions, the castle doctrine would not apply because the intruder had not yet tried to enter the home itself. And if the resident injured or killed the intruder on the porch, there would be no legal presumption that the resident reasonably feared that any household members would be killed or severely injured – the resident would have to rely on regular self-defense grounds to justify using force against the intruder.3

See our related article on stand your ground laws.

Woman in bed holding gun about to shoot intruder, which is permissible under PC 198.5.
Homicide is not a crime when done in accordance with PC 198.5 – California’s Castle Doctrine.

Legal References
California Penal Code 198.5 PC – Presumption in favor of one who uses deadly force against intruder. People v. Silvey (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1320. See also Penal Code 195 PC, Penal Code 196 PC, and Penal Code 197 PC.
Same.
Same. See People v. Wilson (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2021). See People v. Brown (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1489. See also People v. Chen (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 952.

Get Quick Legal Help...
This form is encrypted and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.
 
M92PV4U said:
California Penal Code 198.5 PC spells out the state’s Castle Doctrine. In general, under California law, people in their home may lawfully kill or injure intruders in their home if the following three elements are true:

The intruder or burglar unlawfully and forcibly enters or attempts to enter the residence;
The resident reasonably believed that the intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered or was entering the residence; and
The intruder was not a member of the household or family.1
In short, California law presumes that residents have a reasonable fear of imminent peril or death when the above three conditions have been met. And therefore, it may be a justifiable homicide if the resident kills the intruder. The resident does not need to show the court that the intruder had a weapon, attacked anyone, or made any threats.2

Note that an unenclosed front porch does not count as a residence under California’s castle doctrine. So even if an intruder enters an unenclosed front porch with violent intentions, the castle doctrine would not apply because the intruder had not yet tried to enter the home itself. And if the resident injured or killed the intruder on the porch, there would be no legal presumption that the resident reasonably feared that any household members would be killed or severely injured – the resident would have to rely on regular self-defense grounds to justify using force against the intruder.3

See our related article on stand your ground laws.

Woman in bed holding gun about to shoot intruder, which is permissible under PC 198.5.
Homicide is not a crime when done in accordance with PC 198.5 – California’s Castle Doctrine.

Legal References
California Penal Code 198.5 PC – Presumption in favor of one who uses deadly force against intruder. People v. Silvey (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1320. See also Penal Code 195 PC, Penal Code 196 PC, and Penal Code 197 PC.
Same.
Same. See People v. Wilson (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2021). See People v. Brown (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1489. See also People v. Chen (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2020) 50 Cal. App. 5th 952.

Get Quick Legal Help...
This form is encrypted and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.
Click to expand...
I know this, but it doesn't stop California district attorneys from filing murder charges on homeowners who invoke the castle doctrine. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6, but it didn't get to that. If that was in Arizona the sheriffs department would shake the homeowners hand for taking care of a problem child and help clean up the mess.

I don't think they charged him with 422PC, terrorist threats, which would have been a slam dunk conviction with that video. "I will end you" is a terroristic threat, a felony in California. He didn't even have to mean it, all he had to do was say it.
 
MChat said:
From what I'm gathering about the story is the homeowner was interacting with crazy dude via the Ring camera and wasn't actually home. He came home (because of the Ring camera conversation) to find crazy had broken in through a sliding glass door. Giant shovel as chosen weapon would also indicate homeowner owned no firearms.

I know in my area, at most homes, crazy dude would have been auditioning for "pink mist #1", but some states/counties in this country no longer believe in being able to protect yourself / yours. Given that he had to come home in order to confront the crazy in many states would be grounds for indictment (it's not "self-defense" if you drive to where the guy is) unless homeowners' wife or kids were home when crazy showed up.
Click to expand...
Lotsa snowflakes/ demacommies drinking the "guns are bad" Koolaid in solano cty.
To close to suckremento...
 
Post
2114
Reads like something that particular ccw insurance company prints, then denies you representation...
Not getting into a contest for worst one here, ok!?:flipoff2:
 
BDK said:
If that was in Arizona the sheriffs department would shake the homeowners hand for taking care of a problem child and help clean up the mess.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it depends on where in AZ anymore. Many places have been Californicated with Soros DA's that want to punish gun owners if they use them, even if justified.
 
MChat said:
Unfortunately, it depends on where in AZ anymore. Many places have been Californicated with Soros DA's that want to punish gun owners if they use them, even if justified.
Click to expand...
That sucks. I must have picked a good county with Mohave. It's arguably the most conservative county in the state. I wouldn't change a thing. When my friends there introduce me to others, it's always "He's from California, but he's like us".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh