I'd like a #3 with a side of ass whoopin

[dantheman]

HAHAHAHAHA. Great.

[Vtec?lol]

UGH! Ghetto ass people! Makes me wanna use that word but I'm black and pretty offended by it though if there were ever a time to see it acceptable to use, now would be the time.

[accident]

I agree with mrsleeve 100%, however as far as I know we don't have a duty to retreat. I do know that if someone enters your home forcibly you are permitted to defend it. California Penal Code section 198.5 reads as follows:

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

[FKNFASTM5]

Agree 100% ^

[Sailor37]

white chick screaming = liberal

[IRON-E]

I agree with defending yourself, but he definitely stepped over the line to assault when he continued swinging while they were down (at least from what perspectives one can get from the video).

Dude never stepped out of line, if you have ever seen a street fight. Where there's a black person involved and they are doing the ass whooping, they don't usually back off until you are down on the floor twitching or bleeding profusilly. Nothing against black people but the aggression they bring to the table is no joke., if this happened to me, I would have done the exact same.

[mrsleeve]

I agree with mrsleeve 100%, however as far as I know we don't have a duty to retreat. I do know that if someone enters your home forcibly you are permitted to defend it. California Penal Code section 198.5 reads as follows:

You are correct when you are not going to use NON LETHAL force. Even in your home if you wish to defend your self with LETHAL FORCE in CA you a 1st duty to retreat.

There are several other states with similar statutes and NJ NC and NY are 3 the ring in my head as well. AS far as CA goes unless things have changed (which they may have) since I last was looking into this, that is how I remember it. This case (again IIRC) is somewhat pivotal to the Lethal force provisions in CA penal code People v. Ceballos

[mr.vang]

thanks for the better view

[accident]

You are correct when you are not going to use NON LETHAL force. Even in your home if you wish to defend your self with LETHAL FORCE in CA you a 1st duty to retreat.

There are several other states with similar statutes and NJ NC and NY are 3 the ring in my head as well. AS far as CA goes unless things have changed (which they may have) since I last was looking into this, that is how I remember it. This case (again IIRC) is somewhat pivotal to the Lethal force provisions in CA penal code People v. Ceballos

The way I read the section that I quoted is that if someone forcibly enters your residence, you can use any amount of force, because you are presumed to be in fear for your life.

I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer. I should ask my lawyer buddy about this. I dunno how much he'd know though, he's a DUI attourney.

[accident]

Also RE: People v. Ceballos:

Held. No. Mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion. Therefore, while a person who is present may use deadly force under certain circumstances, a deadly mechanical device is unacceptable, especially where, as here, the burglars were unarmed.