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


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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-02 1:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

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.

As luck would have it, I was watching a video just yesterday that
identified the same rules in a rather different jurisdiction: Russia.
They also have strong limitations on when you can defend yourself and
how strongly. If you use more force than the attacker, you are the bad
guy and you're the one that's going to be living in the Graybar Hotel
for a decade or more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djI8UF3moJU [15 minutes]

Note: This video talks about more than just self-defense in Russia but I
think you'll enjoy the whole video. ;-)

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/2/2025 1:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

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

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.

I'd expect a knife (and maybe a bat) to be judged a lethal level of
force. Shouted obscenities from your front lawn, not so much.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <[email protected]> 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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-03-02 12:34 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 3/2/2025 1:57 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

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


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.

I'd expect a knife (and maybe a bat) to be judged a lethal level of
force.  Shouted obscenities from your front lawn, not so much.

Let's see how many home invaders YOU drive away with obscenities....

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

BTR1701 <[email protected]> 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 2, 2025 at 10:56:09 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:

BTR1701 <[email protected]> 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.

(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.

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)