Post by woofytreats on Dec 6, 2015 1:38:52 GMT
Dec 5, 2015 22:42:56 GMT @endoftheworld said:
I'm interested in non-lethal force in states with no castle law. I'm assuming CA at that time didn't accord you the right to kill an intruder unless your life is threatened. Well by the time you figure out for sure that your life is threatened you might be dead. I think pathfinder had a good home defense system with his bb gun and hatchet.It's my understanding that there are only a few states that don't have castle laws and in those cases they would likely resort to existing case law to adjudicate them. Most of these castle laws are very similar but have different nuances as to where they're applicable ( if outside the home ) or how they employ a requirement to exit the premises if you can do it safely. I don't believe that California's law is much different now than it was in the 70s. It's still based on a presumption of imminent death or great bodily injury and that doesn't necessitate figuring out much if someone has noisily forced their way into your home and all the members of your household are accounted for...
I'm not sure I understand the concept differing in states with no specific castle laws and employing non-lethal force. In most cases, with or without castle laws, these cases occurring inside your home will be adjudicated similarly unless there's an underlying factor that separates them from a presumption of imminent death, bodily harm, etc. A state not having a castle law doesn't mean you can't defend yourself and have to jump through the window lest you're charged with first degree murder. I don't understand how a BB gun makes you safer or less likely to be injured or killed in this circumstance if an armed intruder with specific intent might tie you up without a BB gun...but will shoot you with an actual handgun if you point the BB gun at them. Of course, you can make a similar argument that the homeowner might be less likely to be shot without a defensive firearm.