Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Moves to Severely Limit the Right of Self-Defense
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 18:56:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vq29k9$shem$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vq0vhf$m23u$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 19:56:09 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5a9239e3d2ec77d9a1bc072b41d97fe9";
	logging-data="935382"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/M4aUOWD6xTgEWWU+Ktv8jQMfOC4pxfKg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HWUUMQ8DaH5ovtq9IY+TJG1BBHg=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 3336

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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?