So Today My Car Almost Got Stolen

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by tooter

If it was mine, I'd be spending nights in the car quietly waiting with a gun.

Unfortunately the burglar would probably know that (in California) you would have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm in order to use your gun, so he might not be afraid. You could, however, have a manual gun trap set up to get him/her and if that happened to kill him/her, that would be legal (People v. Ceballos).

The current law in Texas (part of which came to this point on September 1st 2007) is that your vehicle and your workplace are included (with your home of course) as part of your habitat...and the perception of what is reasonable or threatening is your perception (not what is reasonable to others)...and only three things have to be the case to allow your assumption to be valid = 1. Have a right to be at the location -- 2. not have provoked the other person -- and 3. you must not be in the process of committing a crime yourself.

IMO, the law in California in such a situation is liberal drivel and should instead be the same as it is in Texas.

I''ve had a few people, in the process of playfully teasing me about being from California, refer to the related statutes in California as 'The California Apology'.

[SilverSquash!]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Unfortunately the burglar would probably know that (in California) you would have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm in order to use your gun, so he might not be afraid. You could, however, have a manual gun trap set up to get him/her and if that happened to kill him/her, that would be legal (People v. Ceballos).

The current law in Texas (part of which came to this point on September 1st 2007) is that your vehicle and your workplace are included (with your home of course) as part of your habitat...and the perception of what is reasonable or threatening is your perception (not what is reasonable to others)...and only three things have to be the case to allow your assumption to be valid = 1. Have a right to be at the location -- 2. not have provoked the other person -- and 3. you must not be in the process of committing a crime yourself.

IMO, the law in California in such a situation is liberal drivel and should instead be the same as it is in Texas.

bringing back memories of yesterdays test

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by SilverSquash!

bringing back memories of yesterdays test

....and the monumental hypocrisy of some prominent California legislators drives me nuts! U.S. Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have concealed carry permits, but they don't want 'Joe Citizen' to have one .

[Absolutely Red 12]

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Unfortunately the burglar would probably know that (in California) you would have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm in order to use your gun, so he might not be afraid. You could, however, have a manual gun trap set up to get him/her and if that happened to kill him/her, that would be legal (People v. Ceballos).

You mean illegal! Ceballos was convicted!!

Booby traps are illegal in California.

To add, now, if a burglar is running away from your house, you cant shoot him, as he is no longer a threat.

Lastly, Tooters idea of sitting in the car with a gun, would also fall under the booby trap law. The defense would state he normally wouldnt have been there, and put himself in "harm's way"

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by Absolutely Red 12

You mean illegal! Ceballos was convicted!!

Booby traps are illegal in California.

To add, now, if a burglar is running away from your house, you cant shoot him, as he is no longer a threat.

Lastly, Tooters idea of sitting in the car with a gun, would also fall under the booby trap law. The defense would state he normally wouldnt have been there, and put himself in "harm's way"

You are correct. I read the summary too quickly and misread it. I thought that People v Ceballos extinguished a duty to retreat if a gun trap was used (as a trap isn't a person), rather than extinguishing a disclaimer of culpability exerted under a castle doctrine defense.

Thank you for adding all of the other correct information as well ...as, IMO, your additional correct info bolsters the overall tone that I was after.....Namely, that the laws and policies in California (unlike those in Texas) embolden the criminal, not the resident. IMO (and in the opinion of many in Texas) a burglar should be afraid he might get shot while trying to commit a burglary....a few might then make the decision not to commit the burglary.

I know many people in California feel that 'we can't make things more lenient for the resident/property owner because a mistake might be made and an innocent person might be killed' (and I'm NOT saying that you are saying you feel that way). IMO, that is an emotional argument akin to Obama's push for gun control legislation because it would be worth doing if, at a minimum, it saves one child's life....playing on the imagery of Newtown....harping on that one side, rather than weighing that side with the other side -- for example -- women home alone with children being less able to defend themselves and their children from an intruder and not being able to change that circumstance by moving to another state.

I think Texas has it right because we have the presence of a strong deterrent/deterrents (as Singapore does), but some of our deterrents can be exerted on an individual basis, not by the strong hand of government, as is the case in Singapore...and we don't have to give up some of the freedoms that the people of Singapore don't enjoy. I think California is moving slightly toward the other edge of the coin, and that end has been marked by what we've seen recently in England and in Sweden.

[UberSilver]

Yep! I have plenty of guns but I've used pepper spray and a pipe, and really messed up some folks, on two occasions. The guns are for end of the world type activities.

Originally Posted by nookandcrannycar

Unfortunately the burglar would probably know that (in California) you would have to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm in order to use your gun, so he might not be afraid. You could, however, have a manual gun trap set up to get him/her and if that happened to kill him/her, that would be legal (People v. Ceballos).

The current law in Texas (part of which came to this point on September 1st 2007) is that your vehicle and your workplace are included (with your home of course) as part of your habitat...and the perception of what is reasonable or threatening is your perception (not what is reasonable to others)...and only three things have to be the case to allow your assumption to be valid = 1. Have a right to be at the location -- 2. not have provoked the other person -- and 3. you must not be in the process of committing a crime yourself.

IMO, the law in California in such a situation is liberal drivel and should instead be the same as it is in Texas.

I''ve had a few people, in the process of playfully teasing me about being from California, refer to the related statutes in California as 'The California Apology'.

[nookandcrannycar]

Originally Posted by UberSilver

Yep! I have plenty of guns but I've used pepper spray and a pipe, and really messed up some folks, on two occasions. The guns are for end of the world type activities.

A considerably older, but tough, friend of mine owned a shop in the South Shore Center in the 90s. Finally, after I think it was the third time they got robbed ( and after getting in some good licks defending themselves), he and his partners decided enough was enough, closed the shop, and moved to Contra Costa County.

Is the insufficient law enforcement presence in Oakland spilling over into Alameda even more than in the past?