Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hardluck

(634 posts)
62. Here's the Jury Instruction
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 04:26 PM
Apr 2017

California is, by judicial precedent, a stand your ground state. There is no duty to retreat. Here's the applicable jury instruction:

505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party> )
was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime&gt ];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

(The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.)

(If you find that <insert name of decedent/victim> threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may
consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.)

(If you find that the defendant knew that <insert name of decedent/victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.)

(Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.)

(If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name of decedent/victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).)

(A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and atrocious crime> ) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.)

(Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.)

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter)

California is a may issue state and the issuance of concealed carry permits is decided by the county sheriffs' office. Each county has its own rules. Rural counties such as Ventura county state that general self-defense meets the requirement of good cause. Other counties, such as Los Angeles (and i'm pretty sure SF and Alameda County) require an a more specific reason for good cause.




Crazy:40-60 kids?! JudyM Apr 2017 #1
Happens in Philly and at malls from time to time HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #8
At least at the mall, you have a fighting chance to escape. EL34x4 Apr 2017 #9
Bored kids acting out HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #12
Fight... Baconator Apr 2017 #58
Nothing new in Philly HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #13
Minors? MINORS?!?!?! They're fucking train-robbers!!! Iggo Apr 2017 #2
I think they'll need protection from their parents, once the parents find out. NT mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2017 #3
My guess is Dad's absent, and Mom may have other priorities. nt appal_jack Apr 2017 #29
But they're just children. MicaelS Apr 2017 #10
Their brains are still developing Egnever Apr 2017 #39
If violence was involved then yes, they should be treated as adults. hack89 Apr 2017 #48
Trump could not have said it better. PdxSean Apr 2017 #52
Then lock up young violent offenders in dedicated facilities hack89 Apr 2017 #56
If my brother or I were involved in something like this I would want to be in jail. redstatebluegirl Apr 2017 #53
Legally there might be a distinction for a young teen... Baconator Apr 2017 #59
My first reaction as simple; that's really fucked up. vkkv Apr 2017 #4
My first reaction was... EL34x4 Apr 2017 #5
As pointed out, sarisataka Apr 2017 #27
Head of nail greeted by hammer. pablo_marmol Apr 2017 #43
Dunno about 4. This is exactly the kind of scenario CCW advocates put out there geek tragedy Apr 2017 #7
Nothing will happen, Oakland won't pay for it and the DA will refuse to prosecute ansible Apr 2017 #18
Come on, "their own people"?? So the train was full of criminals? No, NOT their people. 7962 Apr 2017 #22
By "their own people' - clearly I meant friends' families, locals, workers who commute on BART vkkv Apr 2017 #33
No, THEY are criminals, so their people, being like them, would also be criminals 7962 Apr 2017 #37
My mistake, from experience I should know there is no reasoning with vkkv Apr 2017 #41
YOU "go away" with the weak comparisons. You equate a speeder & a strong arm thief? 7962 Apr 2017 #47
Speed is the leading cause of automobile deaths by a LONG shot vkkv Apr 2017 #49
Actually alcohol is the leading cause in traffic fatalities. EX500rider Apr 2017 #57
That's not logical. Every "people" has treestar Apr 2017 #60
Their own people? exboyfil Apr 2017 #51
put their faces out there, the public has a right to know who these violent predators are geek tragedy Apr 2017 #6
more like cya (avoiding lawy suits) salin Apr 2017 #11
I'm suprised we've not heard from the CWP crowd. Dyedinthewoolliberal Apr 2017 #14
It's illegal in California ansible Apr 2017 #15
Good. Iggo Apr 2017 #16
Yeah, sure worked out well here... appal_jack Apr 2017 #30
Nobody got shot. Nobody died. Iggo Apr 2017 #36
I wouldn't expect to see this sort of group mayhem occur in a state that grants the right of defense pablo_marmol Apr 2017 #46
Actually, that is not correct. vkkv Apr 2017 #34
CCW's in CA are frequently granted in rural areas. pablo_marmol Apr 2017 #44
Plenty of videos out there show thats exactly what happens most of the time 7962 Apr 2017 #38
Truth. pablo_marmol Apr 2017 #45
Were they all wearing Raiders gear? Baclava Apr 2017 #17
What is wrong with the Raiders? HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #19
Show us the videos and I won't have to speculate. Baclava Apr 2017 #20
Decoys?? How much does a decent surveillance camera cost? DorothyG Apr 2017 #21
And now EVERYONE knows it. genius nt 7962 Apr 2017 #23
Well, there's still Youtube, surely the perps posted them on there by now Baclava Apr 2017 #25
I see you're unfamiliar with the Raider Nation archetype. nt Codeine Apr 2017 #24
As a Steelers fan I take my shots when I get them n/t Baclava Apr 2017 #26
Ouch Egnever Apr 2017 #40
And yet ... Raiders actual team is the only one in the league w/zero arrests last 3 years ... mr_lebowski Apr 2017 #55
PUre scum nt Lucky Luciano Apr 2017 #28
Wtf? Not releasing video cause they "appear" to be minors? Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #31
Exactly... Baconator Apr 2017 #64
No sympathy for these punks Vogon_Glory Apr 2017 #32
40-60??? Pfft ! try 200-300 here. Although this was a few years ago and wilding in the streets lunasun Apr 2017 #35
NYC copycat? HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #42
So what would happen if 2-3 got shot during the crime? oneshooter Apr 2017 #50
A city like San Fran isn't going to let just ANYONE christx30 Apr 2017 #54
That's why there's a growing push for a national CCW law. EL34x4 Apr 2017 #61
...or the wealthy and connected. Baconator Apr 2017 #63
San Francisco has no choice in whether or not to hoinor CCW permits ripcord Apr 2017 #67
Here's the Jury Instruction hardluck Apr 2017 #62
They said they would circulate the video to the schools, etc. So they aren't withholding it entirely Yo_Mama Apr 2017 #65
What a crock... These "youths" commandeered a train, beat and robbed passengers... EL34x4 Apr 2017 #66
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»BART takeover robbery: 40...»Reply #62