Protecting yourself with spouses gun?

[RickD427]

Isn't that its own charge by itself? I thought boobytrapping is universally illegal across the US pretty much? https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-3/division-3/section-20110/

But that seems sensible that he didn't have reasonable fear because of what he said beforehand.

I guess CA has a "Limited Castle Doctrine" is the most accurate statement

I don't recall the Marine in this case using a "Booby-Trap". I'm reciting the case facts from memory and that's kinda risky at my age. I rely on my hard disk of case law for the more recent stuff. I followed the media reports as the case progressed, and one of the officers who handled it had been a recruit in an academy class that I taught. We met a few years later and he gave me a debrief.

 

[ChallengerScatPackClub]

It’s liberal California. They’ll find reasons to hang both of you and the bad guy will get a statue and street named after him.

 

[Gawernator]

It’s liberal California. They’ll find reasons to hang both of you and the bad guy will get a statue and street named after him.

Really? Can you name any home invasion self defense cases where this happened? If that’s true there must be dozens or hundreds of cases like it you could easily share.

 

[Hit Factor]

Really? Can you name any home invasion self defense cases where this happened? If that’s true there must be dozens or hundreds of cases like it you could easily share.

Come on, it wouldn’t be FUD if it was really happening. If FUD Merchants were required to actually show evidence, they’d go out of business!

 

[dvoncock]

IANAL
Yes, generally speaking, the fact that it's someone else's gun doesn't prevent you from using it in lawful self-defense. The legality of the defensive use and the legality of how the firearm was stored/accessed are separate questions. The same basic distinction would apply to a teenager, the defensive use could potentially be justified while the parent could separately have a storage/access issue depending on the circumstances.

Interestingly (and counter to my initial belief), under certain very narrow emergency circumstances, even a convicted felon can temporarily possess and use a firearm in self-defense or defense of another. California recognizes that defense under People v. King and CALCRIM 2514. The key is that the danger is imminent, the gun becomes available without advance planning, and possession lasts only as long as necessary. So the fact that the gun belongs to someone else isn't what determines whether the defensive use is lawful.

Good find. Few non-attorneys know about the transitory possession defense.

Another aspect is the discrete or distinct nature of charges.

In other words, it’s possible for a prohibited person or someone who’s illegally carrying to act in lawful self-defense with a firearm.

A colleague tried—and won—a case with with this precise issue.

 

[dvoncock]

CA has castle doctrine. Only TX allows for lethal force against theft and only during the night.

I have no idea what “true castle doctrine” means, legally.

In law school, my professors described our state law as a “castle doctrine” and in practice we refer to PC 198.5 as the “castle doctrine” statute. Also, I’ve seen published opinions where California courts refer to our state law as a “castle doctrine.”

Every state’s law differs slightly, so you’re always going to see nuance. The fact that Texas allows lethal force in defense of property (under some circumstances) doesn’t mean California doesn’t have a “true castle doctrine.”

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but at least on paper, our state has pretty strong self-defense laws, when you consider the PC 198.5, not having a duty to retreat, the law around mutual combats, and the long list of crimes that create a presumption that a defender was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

 

[dvoncock]

We discussed PC 198.5 earlier in this thread. It has several shortcomings that make it less than a true "Castle Doctrine."

Foremost of those shortcomings is that the presumption of "reasonable fear" is rebuttable.

There was a trial court case that originated in the city of San Fernando during the 1980's (it never became a published appellate case and it occurred before I became a digital packrat so I don't have the case citation). In that case, a neighborhood was being frequented by a burglar. One resident (who happened be a veteran of a few weeks service in the Marine Corps (never having graduated from boot camp)) took it upon himself to rid the community of the burglar. He configured his home as "bait" for the burglar, and when the burglar broke in, the Marine shot and killed him. His case wasn't helped by post shooting comments that he made where he claimed that his status as a Marine led him to seek out the burglar. The D.A. filed murder charges and the Marine pled PC 198.5 as a defense. The prosecution successfully argued that the Marine's actions in "baiting" the burglar were inconsistent with the presumption of reasonable fear. The rebuttal was successful and the Marine was convicted. PC 198.5 did help him at all.

That was way before my time, so I’m not familiar with the case.

From what you describe, the facts sound sufficient not only to rebut the castle doctrine presumption but also to establish lying-in-wait, which is a special circumstance.

In other words, sounds like a first degree or capital murder to me.

The law does not treat vigilantes kindly in California or anywhere else.