Self-Defense Laws Expanded
The power must shift from the perpetrator to the victim and/or potential victim. I believe LAPD/WEHO Sheriff's Dept (et al.) in particular when I thought you had to show proof that you had to self defend yourself by taking a punch, was the only way to get perpetrator/rapist/attacker/batterer (et al.) arrested. Unfortunately with misogyny, socioeconomic discrimination and possibly homosexual discrimination, LAPD in particular has made the community a very peril environment by enabling the above to attack and get away with it by saying "we weren't here to witness it so he can press charges on you and you on him." When I've been given this option i've agreed to get arrested and take my chances through due process saying "If I have to go to jail in order to do the right thing for my community then I'm willing to do that." I was then threatened to have my vehicle impounded because the officer wasn't willing to do the report. He was there to hate and enable a sociopath. I made very clear that I would break the assailant's legs if they ever came and bothered me again and that I would not waste my time calling the police.
It's time for the oppression to stop with the police and stop making our community such a dangerous place. the details are in my book "Tunnel Vision" btw, which is yet to published as i'm finishing manuscript. It's time that sociopaths and haters enabled by the police know their place and know that I won't nor shall any good person ever have to tolerate such a violation ever.
The power must be shifted to the person being attacked and no longer the assailant/rapist/batterer/the like be enabled, as one sociopath to another, by male police officers.
Self defense laws to be amended and include in any and all cases of rape that the (potential) victim/person being attacked by a rapist and/or someone attempted to rape that person, the person being attacked shall not be subject to any/all crimes including resulting in the attacker's(s') death regardless of means necessary to preserve one's human rights, physcial & mental freedoms, and dignities. When one forces themselves physically and of a sexual nature, the person being attacked has a right to stop by any means necessary from being raped and is unequivocal.
More crime is enabled and hurts the community by having sociopaths and psychopaths (ASPD (anti-social personality disorder) now) in uniform enabling violence especially in cases of women. Quite honestly the Police Departments in the area should not be celebrating lower crime, but be ashamed of themselves.
If a person harasses another, which are precursors to rape and/or other certain violence, and does not go away when clearly communicated and/or obvious are acts to annoy and harass, then the harassee (person being harassed) has a right to stand their ground and not move and tell the person to go away. They may use physical force especially in case of epithets, hate (misogyny, homosexual, socioeconomic) and potential rape, when harasser is provoking a reaction, negative. Typically a woman will not pick on a man, nor is it as much as a threat as a man would not be worried about a woman raping him. The dynamics should give a warranted basis for harassment as sex and oppressing another for power tend to be the motives for harassment and bottom line women don't rape or kill people. (less than .03% and typically an accessory as murder and afraid to not go along with boyfriend otherwise they'll be killed).
Provocation Law/Defense Defined: amend castling law 198.5 to include 'special places' and 'vehicles' use precedents CA v. Blette 1CA17021 and NJ Self-Defense Law, Assembly No. 159
Defenses included which exonerate the harassee (as opposed to the harasser/perpetrator) from the following:
CA Penal Codes:
PC 422 (felony) - Criminal Threats and
PC 417 (misdemeanor or felony) - Brandishing a weapon
This defense is due to the verbal warning required by the harassee said to the harasser to deter and make known clearly, that harasser's acts are unwanted, by any verbal means.
If the harasser continues to feel entitled and display blatant disregard for the harassee's personal rights, the harassee can use reasonable physical force to deter further and made to leave, including physical acts resulting in physical damage and if necessary brandishing a gun as well as using a firearm or the like, if the harasser chooses to continue emotional distress and/or intentional infliction. If the harasser refuses to leave as to still cause malicious unwanted acts, after one has been told to leave this person has violated a crime by not doing so.PC 198.5 - Castle Law
California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197. CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."
"Assembly, No. 159, State of New Jersey, 213th Legislature, The "New Jersey Self Defense Law"". May 6, 2008. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF. Retrieved 2009-03-19. "The “Castle Doctrine” is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution."New Jersey has more progressive Castle Laws, which include protection in 'special areas' and one's vehicle. State of California will benefit from these progressive laws looking out for good citizens' best interests instead of enabling perpetrators, the state will give the power back to good citizen of the state. CA Castle Laws to be amended and expanded to include vehicles and special places no retreat laws and include precedents from No. 159 NJ Self Defense laws:
b. The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution.
c. Article I of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees the citizens of this State the rights "of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
d. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affords the people of this nation the right to keep and bear arms.
e. All who reside in and all who visit this State have a right to expect to be unmolested and safe within their homes, residences and vehicles.
f. No person should be required, as a point of law, to surrender their personal safety or well being to the unlawful actions of a criminal, nor to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
g. It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper, and within the public interest, to ensure that law-abiding people are justified in protecting themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers, and that they may do so without fear of prosecution or civil action.
No duty to retreatAlthough some states require that you retreat before responding to force with force, California self-defense law does not.21 In fact, even if you think you may face a deadly attack by, for example, going somewhere you know an enemy frequently hangs out...and are subsequently compelled to act in self-defense...you are still permitted to go to that location.22
California’s self-defense laws excuse otherwise criminal conduct when you reasonably act to protect yourself or another person from suffering imminent bodily harm.This means that if you shoot at an inhabited dwelling or occupied car, building, etc….but only do so because you are reasonably protecting yourself or another person…then you aren't guilty under Penal Code 246 PC. This is the case whether you injure or even kill another person.13That honest belief must also be reasonable. If a court decides you had an honest-- but unreasonable-- belief certain conduct was necessary, it will say you engaged in ‘imperfect self-defense.’For police too (double count felony)
Penal Code 211 robbery
Penal Code 261 rape
Defense of propertyOwners or residents of a home (but not their guests34) are entitled reasonably to defend their property against imminent harm. If you are in the home when an intruder enters, California self-defense law presumes that you reasonably fear imminent harm or danger.35However, this presumption only applies once an intruder actually enters your home. Prior to the entry, you must prove that you acted reasonably if you used force to make him/her leave.36Similarly, you have a right to use force against someone who is trespassing on your property. If you ask the person who is trespassing to leave...and he/she does not...you are permitted to use reasonable force to make him/her leave your property.37
Imperfect self-defenseAs previously mentioned, an honest but unreasonable belief won't completely excuse your attack, but it may reduce your culpability under the theory of imperfect self-defense.Imperfect self-defense applies to murder. Unlike self-defense, imperfect self-defense won't exonerate you from killing another, but it may reduce your charge from Penal Code 187 murder to Penal Code 192 manslaughter...a less serious offense.14Like California self-defense, the judge has a duty to instruct the jury that you may be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder if there is sufficient evidence to support an actual (though again, unreasonable) belief that you faced imminent harm.15
Forcible and atrocious crimesIf you argue that you acted in self-defense because you believed you were about to be killed, maimed, raped, robbed, or the victim of another California violent crime, the judge will instruct the jury that they may presume you had a reasonable belief that you were about to suffer imminent harm.16If you acted in response to one of these "forcible and atrocious crimes", the jury will only need to consider whether you responded reasonably.
Penal Code 243 battery on a police officerPenal Code 243 battery on a police officer prohibits exactly that -- unlawfully touching an officer.27 If an officer uses unreasonable or excessive force against you or unlawfully arrests you, you are entitled reasonably to protect yourself without being punished for this offense.California self-defense law will even protect you as a prisoner if a correctional officer uses unreasonable or excessive force against you, so long as you only use reasonable force to protect yourself.28Assault860. Assault on Firefighter or Peace Officer With Deadly Weapon or Force Likely toProduce Great Bodily Injury (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 245(c) & (d))
Penal Code 242 batteryPenal Code 242 battery is simply defined as the unlawful touching of another.24 A battery can therefore range from offensive contact like spitting on someone to violent contact like a punching someone in the face.As discussed, you are permitted to respond reasonably to a threat of imminent danger causing injury...but what about a simple imminent touching?If you are in imminent danger of being unlawfully touched, you are permitted to use force that is reasonable to sufficiently protect against the touching, even though you don't fear imminent bodily harm.25Incidentally, the legal doctrine of "transferred intent" applies to self-defense situations. This means that, if while you are defending yourself, you accidentally injure someone other than the person whom you are defending against, you will not be prosecuted for injuring that individual.26
Reasonable responseThe general rule under California self-defense law is that you are only allowed to use enough force to combat the force being used against you.However, if you have previously been threatened by your attacker, you are entitled to act more quickly and with more force than someone who has not been threatened.17 Deadly force, however, may only be justified if you are about to suffer great bodily injury or death and if there is no other alternative.Example:
Dan is punching Steve. Because Dan is only using his fist, Steve can't shoot Dan and subsequently claim self-defense.Similarly, while you are permitted to defend against force being used against you, you are not permitted to act out of vengeance. However, you are entitled to stand your ground until your safety is no longer threatened.18Once you have secured your safety, you must cease fighting or you lose your right to claim this privilege.19Example:
If Bill stabs Rick with a knife...and Rick is able to grab and secure the knife to the point where he is no longer threatened...he cannot subsequently stab Bill and plead self-defense. The danger that would justify a self-defensive stabbing had ceased.And even if you are the aggressor in the fight...which typically precludes you from asserting self-defense... you may plead self-defense if:
1. you make a good faith effort to stop fighting and clearly indicate that you are trying to do so (but the other party doesn't stop fighting), or2. the other party counters your initial non deadly attack with deadly force.20
ab"Assembly, No. 159, State of New Jersey, 213th Legislature, The "New Jersey Self Defense Law"". May 6, 2008. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF. Retrieved 2009-03-19. "The “Castle Doctrine” is a long-standing American legal concept arising from English Common Law that provides that one's abode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections and immunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defending oneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear of prosecution."b. The "Castle Doctrine" is a long-standing American legalconcept arising from English Common Law that provides that one'sabode is a special area in which one enjoys certain protections andimmunities, that one is not obligated to retreat before defendingoneself against attack, and that one may do so without fear ofprosecution.c. Article I of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees thecitizens of this State the rights "of enjoying and defending life andliberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and ofpursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
d. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitutionaffords the people of this nation the right to keep and bear arms.
e. All who reside in and all who visit this State have a right toexpect to be unmolested and safe within their homes, residences andvehicles.
f. No person should be required, as a point of law, to surrendertheir personal safety or well being to the unlawful actions of acriminal, nor to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack.
g. It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper, and within thepublic interest, to ensure that law-abiding people are justified inprotecting themselves, their families and others from intruders andattackers, and that they may do so without fear of prosecution orcivil action.
CaliforniaCalifornia Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating."8th and 14 thamendements violated
Critics of homeless criminalization claim that such measures do nothing to actually solve homelessness and in fact make matters worse. Homeless people find it harder to secure employment, housing, or federal benefits with a criminal record, and therefore penalizing the act of being homeless makes exiting such a situation much more difficult. In fact, a recent federal appeals court ruled an anti-homeless policy in Los Angeles as unconstitutional. Similarly, in response to growing reports of hate crimes, some state governments have proposed the addition of "people experiencing homelessness" to their hate-crimes statutes.
22) "A seemingly conditional threat contingent on an act highly unlikely to occur may convey to the victim a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution" Standfield, 32Cal.App.4th at 1162.1) Pen. Code Section 646.9 (codified Jan. 1, 1991).2) Subsequent to these cases, the California legislature enacted Veh. Code Section 1808.21, which provides that stalking and threat victims may request confidentiality of their DMV records.3) CALJIC 9.16.2 (amended 1995).4) "Repeatedly" means on more than one occasion. "Harassment means multiple acts, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. People v. Heilman 25 Cal.App.4th 391 (1994).17) In re David L. 234CalApp.3d 1655 (1991).18) People v. Stanfield, 32Cal.App.4th 1152 (1995); In re David L., 234Cal.App.3d 1655.19) People v. Brooks, 26Cal.App.4th 142 (1994):Stanfield, 32Cal.App.4th 1152.20) People v. Brown, 26Cal.App.4th 1251 (1994).5) The victim's state of mind (and knowledge of the suspect's prior history) is relevant and admissible at trial. People v. McClelland, 42Cal.App.4th 144 (1995).
SITE YOUR CASE J1CA17021
State of California People v. Blette