Asian actor beats down a guy for kicking his Audi R8
07-17-18, 11:19 PM
#61
Lexus Test Driver
Thread Starter
Not a badass, not at all, quite the opposite. But that's my natural reaction when the adrenaline is rushing. Two guys on one? Yup, I feel threatened. I mean if OJ Simpson got away with murder then anything is possible as long as you have $$$$. Right? You may disagree with it but that's the way the world works.
07-19-18, 08:27 PM
#62
07-19-18, 08:59 PM
#63
Lexus Fanatic
No state has you can just shoot someone and then ask questions later. Stand your ground is essentially to defend yourself against a threat and not have to retreat where you are legally allowed to be. It does not give you the right to shoot someone for kicking your car or a 1 on 1 fist fight.
07-20-18, 09:34 PM
#64
No state has you can just shoot someone and then ask questions later. Stand your ground is essentially to defend yourself against a threat and not have to retreat where you are legally allowed to be. It does not give you the right to shoot someone for kicking your car or a 1 on 1 fist fight.
07-23-18, 09:37 AM
#65
Lexus Champion
3471.Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor
A person who (engages in mutual combat/ [or who] starts a fight) has a
right to self-defense only if:
1. (He/She) actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting;
[AND]
2. (He/She) indicated, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent,
in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/
she) wanted to stop fighting and that (he/she) had stopped
fighting(;/.)
<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat.>
[AND
3. (He/She) gave (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]
If the defendant meets these requirements, (he/she) then had a right to
self-defense if the opponent continued to fight.
[However, if the defendant used only non-deadly force, and the
opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the
defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had
the right to defend (himself/herself) with deadly force and was not
required to try to stop fighting(,/ or) communicate the desire to stop to
the opponent[, or give the opponent a chance to stop fighting].]
[A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent
or agreement. That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and
must occur before the claim to self-defense arose.]
In this case there was no deadly force indicated, it was clearly mutual combat from the 3 parties involved and if the police had shown up all 3 would have been arrested and charged with assault, regardless of who started it.
Last edited by mjeds; 07-23-18 at 05:01 PM.
07-23-18, 10:21 AM
#66
Lexus Fanatic
No it isn't. The R8 guy is getting in a street fight over talking trash and someone kicking his car, he is a willing participant and in no way could he use a firearm in self defense legally in that situation, the other guy who jumped on him says he was trying to stop the fight and that is not justification to use a firearm on him either. One you get in a street fight and are a willing participant you have no real justification to use deadly force/firearm unless one of the people you are fighting pulls out a deadly weapon like a gun or knife or maybe a extreme case where you have several people against you getting you on the ground and pummeling you over and over where you fear for your life and even then you may not get away with the justification if it is a fight you started/were a willing participant.
07-23-18, 05:17 PM
#67
no it is not, in California it is called the mutual combat law: If you fight back you are no longer considered the "victim", if you don't withdraw or indicate that you have no desire to fight, you are just as culpable as the initial aggressor. There is no "Right to Defend" law in California, and use of deadly force is almost never allowed here, a shooter in any situation will be arrested and charged, and it will be left to a jury to decide if their actions were justified.
3471.Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor
A person who (engages in mutual combat/ [or who] starts a fight) has a
right to self-defense only if:
1. (He/She) actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting;
[AND]
2. (He/She) indicated, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent,
in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/
she) wanted to stop fighting and that (he/she) had stopped
fighting(;/.)
<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat.>
[AND
3. (He/She) gave (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]
If the defendant meets these requirements, (he/she) then had a right to
self-defense if the opponent continued to fight.
[However, if the defendant used only non-deadly force, and the
opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the
defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had
the right to defend (himself/herself) with deadly force and was not
required to try to stop fighting(,/ or) communicate the desire to stop to
the opponent[, or give the opponent a chance to stop fighting].]
[A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent
or agreement. That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and
must occur before the claim to self-defense arose.]
In this case there was no deadly force indicated, it was clearly mutual combat from the 3 parties involved and if the police had shown up all 3 would have been arrested and charged with assault, regardless of who started it.
3471.Right to Self-Defense: Mutual Combat or Initial Aggressor
A person who (engages in mutual combat/ [or who] starts a fight) has a
right to self-defense only if:
1. (He/She) actually and in good faith tried to stop fighting;
[AND]
2. (He/She) indicated, by word or by conduct, to (his/her) opponent,
in a way that a reasonable person would understand, that (he/
she) wanted to stop fighting and that (he/she) had stopped
fighting(;/.)
<Give element 3 in cases of mutual combat.>
[AND
3. (He/She) gave (his/her) opponent a chance to stop fighting.]
If the defendant meets these requirements, (he/she) then had a right to
self-defense if the opponent continued to fight.
[However, if the defendant used only non-deadly force, and the
opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the
defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had
the right to defend (himself/herself) with deadly force and was not
required to try to stop fighting(,/ or) communicate the desire to stop to
the opponent[, or give the opponent a chance to stop fighting].]
[A fight is mutual combat when it began or continued by mutual consent
or agreement. That agreement may be expressly stated or implied and
must occur before the claim to self-defense arose.]
In this case there was no deadly force indicated, it was clearly mutual combat from the 3 parties involved and if the police had shown up all 3 would have been arrested and charged with assault, regardless of who started it.
http://www.sacramentodefenseattorney...nd-ground-law/
DOES CALIFORNIA HAVE A STAND YOUR GROUND LAW?
Posted by alincintean on February 1, 2017
A lot of attention has been afforded to “stand your ground” laws across the country following the highly publicized and fatal encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012. We will leave the details of that specific case for another time and place, but the subject of “stand your ground” laws is worth an in depth discussion.
The term “stand your ground” has been used across the country by a variety of states to describe their self-defense laws. In Texas for example, the term “stand your ground” is used because the self-defense laws state that an individual is allowed to use force against a perceived attacker if they are unable to hold or stand their ground, and they fear imminent and serious harm to themselves. In other words, you could make a valid defense for shooting someone who advanced upon you in a way that instilled fear of harm within you, as long as their advancement hampered your ability to stand your ground. In California, the laws surrounding the use of force during self-defense are governed by the “Castle Doctrine” PC Section 198.5.
A lot of attention has been afforded to “stand your ground” laws across the country following the highly publicized and fatal encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012. We will leave the details of that specific case for another time and place, but the subject of “stand your ground” laws is worth an in depth discussion.
The term “stand your ground” has been used across the country by a variety of states to describe their self-defense laws. In Texas for example, the term “stand your ground” is used because the self-defense laws state that an individual is allowed to use force against a perceived attacker if they are unable to hold or stand their ground, and they fear imminent and serious harm to themselves. In other words, you could make a valid defense for shooting someone who advanced upon you in a way that instilled fear of harm within you, as long as their advancement hampered your ability to stand your ground. In California, the laws surrounding the use of force during self-defense are governed by the “Castle Doctrine” PC Section 198.5.
When Can I Legally Use a Gun in Self Defense in California?
In California, the use of deadly force during self-defense is treated differently whether the altercation takes place inside your home or outside your home. There is no specific mention of firearms or other weapons – the law is based upon whether you had the right to protect yourself using deadly force, regardless of the means used.Inside Your Own Home
Under Penal Code 198.5, you are allowed to use deadly force within your own home if you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril or great bodily injury”. This however is not the only justification required, and a few other key things must occur:- You knew or had reason to believe the intruder entered your home unlawfully
- The intruder was acting unlawfully (was not someone doing their job, such as a police officer)
- There was a reasonable fear of death or injury to you or another occupant of the home
- You or any other occupants of the home did not provoke the intruder
Outside of Your Home
Self-defense situations can occur anywhere and at any time, and California law recognizes that individuals have the right to defend themselves with deadly force outside the home as well. California Jury Instructions (CALCRIM #505 & #506) describe this act as “justifiable homicide”. These instructions provide juries across the state with a set of circumstances that are supposed to result in an innocent verdict for individuals charged with assault, homicide or other crimes committed during self-defense.- You had a reasonable fear of being injured or killed
- You had the reasonable belief that you needed to use force to protect yourself from being injured or killed
- You used no amount of force above that which was needed to stop the imminent threat
07-23-18, 05:23 PM
#68
No it isn't. The R8 guy is getting in a street fight over talking trash and someone kicking his car, he is a willing participant and in no way could he use a firearm in self defense legally in that situation, the other guy who jumped on him says he was trying to stop the fight and that is not justification to use a firearm on him either. One you get in a street fight and are a willing participant you have no real justification to use deadly force/firearm unless one of the people you are fighting pulls out a deadly weapon like a gun or knife or maybe a extreme case where you have several people against you getting you on the ground and pummeling you over and over where you fear for your life and even then you may not get away with the justification if it is a fight you started/were a willing participant.
07-23-18, 06:04 PM
#69
Lexus Champion
and I have been on this side of the law and did 3 years in prison for Assault under PC 240, even though I acted in self-defense and did not act willfully with intent. But I was found to have inflicted excessive "harm" to the other person because I beat him unconscious after he attacked me and my mother and the prosecutor made the jury believe that I could and should have stopped beating the idiot when he was no longer capable of "fighting back", but instead I persisted until he was unconscious. Had I used a gun I would be serving LIFE.
It was considered Mutual Combat because I fought back, and then escalated to assault because I made sure the idiot didn't get back up and try anything else.
So until you are on the wrong side of the law, don't talk about things you don't understand, I went through it, so I very well have a clue how things work, regardless of what same law written by some idiot politician says.
07-23-18, 09:24 PM
#70
Lexus Fanatic
First of all, the R8 driver did not start the incident but the guy holding his daughter's hand instigated the event but verbally harassing the driver and then committing an act of vandalism by kicking the car. Second of all, tackling someone isn't "trying to stop the fight." You want to stop the fight, be a man and stand between the two parties. And last but not least, under California's criminal law, you have the right to defend yourself and use deadly force if you feel threatened in any way, shape or form. Get your facts straight.
George Zimmerman had a someone with a history of violence attack him and get on top of him pounding his head into the cement/ground in Florida and he faced a trial and could have been found guilty if he did not have a good lawyer after shooting that guy.
07-24-18, 08:30 AM
#71
Outside of Your Home
Outside of Your Home
Self-defense situations can occur anywhere and at any time, and California law recognizes that individuals have the right to defend themselves with deadly force outside the home as well. California Jury Instructions (CALCRIM #505 & #506) describe this act as “justifiable homicide”. These instructions provide juries across the state with a set of circumstances that are supposed to result in an innocent verdict for individuals charged with assault, homicide or other crimes committed during self-defense.
- You had a reasonable fear of being injured or killed
- You had the reasonable belief that you needed to use force to protect yourself from being injured or killed
- You used no amount of force above that which was needed to stop the imminent threat.
So to answer your question - can you use deadly force (firearms) in this guy's scenario? Absolutely not under the law code you just pulled. You may use a gun to shoot and disable them (in the leg, arm, to force them to cease and desist under the threat of firearm), but you cannot kill them. A jury will pin excessive force on your *** faster than you can say "self-defense".
07-24-18, 06:05 PM
#72
I didn't make anything up you twit, I pulled it right from the California Criminal Code https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3470/
and I have been on this side of the law and did 3 years in prison for Assault under PC 240, even though I acted in self-defense and did not act willfully with intent. But I was found to have inflicted excessive "harm" to the other person because I beat him unconscious after he attacked me and my mother and the prosecutor made the jury believe that I could and should have stopped beating the idiot when he was no longer capable of "fighting back", but instead I persisted until he was unconscious. Had I used a gun I would be serving LIFE.
It was considered Mutual Combat because I fought back, and then escalated to assault because I made sure the idiot didn't get back up and try anything else.
So until you are on the wrong side of the law, don't talk about things you don't understand, I went through it, so I very well have a clue how things work, regardless of what same law written by some idiot politician says.
and I have been on this side of the law and did 3 years in prison for Assault under PC 240, even though I acted in self-defense and did not act willfully with intent. But I was found to have inflicted excessive "harm" to the other person because I beat him unconscious after he attacked me and my mother and the prosecutor made the jury believe that I could and should have stopped beating the idiot when he was no longer capable of "fighting back", but instead I persisted until he was unconscious. Had I used a gun I would be serving LIFE.
It was considered Mutual Combat because I fought back, and then escalated to assault because I made sure the idiot didn't get back up and try anything else.
So until you are on the wrong side of the law, don't talk about things you don't understand, I went through it, so I very well have a clue how things work, regardless of what same law written by some idiot politician says.
07-24-18, 06:07 PM
#73
Are you really trying to make this argument? Do you really think you can just shoot someone because you get in a street fight, someone threatens you, bar fight, argument over a parking space as long as you claim you were threatened in some way? If that was the case then there would be no gangs in California because anyone can just shoot gang members when they try to intimidate, harass you, gang up on you, etc. You are not allowed to just kill people just because you feel threatened in any way, shape, or form. You need to get your facts straight.
George Zimmerman had a someone with a history of violence attack him and get on top of him pounding his head into the cement/ground in Florida and he faced a trial and could have been found guilty if he did not have a good lawyer after shooting that guy.
George Zimmerman had a someone with a history of violence attack him and get on top of him pounding his head into the cement/ground in Florida and he faced a trial and could have been found guilty if he did not have a good lawyer after shooting that guy.
07-24-18, 06:09 PM
#74
[h2]
So to answer your question - can you use deadly force (firearms) in this guy's scenario? Absolutely not under the law code you just pulled. You may use a gun to shoot and disable them (in the leg, arm, to force them to cease and desist under the threat of firearm), but you cannot kill them. A jury will pin excessive force on your *** faster than you can say "self-defense".
So to answer your question - can you use deadly force (firearms) in this guy's scenario? Absolutely not under the law code you just pulled. You may use a gun to shoot and disable them (in the leg, arm, to force them to cease and desist under the threat of firearm), but you cannot kill them. A jury will pin excessive force on your *** faster than you can say "self-defense".
07-24-18, 07:10 PM
#75
Lexus Champion
you, seeing as you have now clue about US, much less CA court systems work.
I was looking at 13 years I got 3, There aren’t many if any other lawyers that could have done any better at that price level so unless I had unlimited funds, OJ type lawyers cost big money, hundreds of thousands to millions. A full jury trial would have cost me $250,000 or more, I chose a bench trial, still cost me $50k.
However since you you seem to think it’s that easy, if there is ever a next time I will be sure to inform the courts that you are offering unlimited funds to pay for my ‘great attorney’ to beat the laws you think would allow such asinine behavior.
Last edited by mjeds; 07-24-18 at 07:15 PM.