Self-Defense Laws Expanded
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 LawCalifornia 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.[17] 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 retreat
Although 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.22California’s self-defense laws excuse otherwise criminal conduct when you reasonably act to protect yourself or another person from suffering imminent bodily harm.
Penal Code 211 robbery
Penal Code 261 rape
Defense of property
Owners 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.35Imperfect self-defense
As 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.Forcible and atrocious crimes
If 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.16Penal Code 243 battery on a police officer
Penal 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.Penal Code 242 battery
Penal 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.Reasonable response
The 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.Dan is punching Steve. Because Dan is only using his fist, Steve can't shoot Dan and subsequently claim self-defense.
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.
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.[17]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 violatedCritics 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.[3] In fact, a recent federal appeals court ruled an anti-homeless policy in Los Angeles as unconstitutional.[7] 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.
The stalking
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).SITE YOUR CASE J1CA17021
State of California People v. Blette