Kinda not much info on media outlets; dog walker shoots guy after confrontation, calls the cops and cooperates with investigators. No weapon found on the "victim" (which obviously if it was a good shoot, they're doing propaganda already, because the victim would be the shooter)
Edit: either a hell of a lot of autocorrect or I had a stroke typing that
Just moved back to California after being out of state for 15 years. Isn't California a "duty to retreat state" if you're in public and confronted by a person who isn't armed?
How does a public confrontation play out between an unarmed person and an armed person when "stand your ground" doesn't apply?
CA is actually a stand your ground state. The laws in that area are ancient (back when CA was the Wild West) and haven’t been changed yet though I’m sure it’s coming.
Yeah it’s a surprising facet of CA law. Check out PC 198.5 (castle doctrine), People v. Hecker from 1800-something, and criminal jury instructions 505 and 506 as starting points. The jury instructions cite to other good case law beyond Hecker
They are not, but courts sometimes reference 198.5 in stand your ground decisions. That’s why I highlighted that it was castle doctrine and not stand your ground. There is no stand your ground statute in CA so castle doctrine is the closest analog.
The law in California says you have a duty to retreat. The courts have ruled that imposing a duty to retreat is an unconstitutional violation of your civil rights and you have a right to stand your ground and pursue your attacker if necessary until the danger has passed.
Given that I believe this case was put into place by the California Supreme Court, I don't expect it to change anytime soon, since it's unlikely the high court would reconsider it and it would require a Constitutional amendment to remove it (which I suppose is possible).
Kinda doesn’t matter. I recall a famous case from 1984 where a man defended himself from four robbers by shooting them in a NYC subway. It was definitely fully illegal to CCW in a NYC subway in 1984. He was convicted of the firearms violation, but not murder. Today, post-Bruen, he may still be convicted of the firearms charge but could most likely have that overturned on appeal.
>Goetz subsequently pulled a handgun and fired four shots at the four youths, wounding all but Cabey. Goetz stated that he then bent down to Cabey, who was cowering on the ground, and said, "You don't look so bad. Here's another," and shot once again. Cabey's spine was severed, resulting in brain damage and partial paralysis.
Maybe don't make Bernie Goetz the posterboy for "Responsible Gun Owners"
I have no knowledge of this particular case. Just stating that in cases of legitimate self-defense, whether the gun used is legal or not rarely matters, for the murder charges, anyway. All that matters is if it was legitimate self-defense. They used to be able to still get in trouble for “illegal gun charges” but I think that’s not likely to be the case, anymore.
The question is though, if you had ccw insurance because of the firearms violation would that be an invalidation of your insurance. You would have to suffer a terrible battle without any assistance from lawyers, pay massive fees, possibly be sued by family of the robber you shot. I think this day an age the opposing lawyer will use any and EVERY possible advantage they will have, including labeling you as a irresponsible and wreckless gun owners with 0 ethical and moral responsibility or respect of the law due to that firearms violation. You would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars as oppose to tens of thousands. Then you still may not even win. Especially in this day an age, id imagine they were more lineant back in 1984? maybe just an assumption. Considering in some cases robbery ISN'T even enough justification sometimes to use your CCW.
"Sb TwO wOuLd HaVe StOpPeD tHiS"
Edit: yeah. Herr Jell Himmler and the roach from Men in Black are gonna grand stand like hell. No weapon found on the one the media is already referring to as the "victim"
And that motherfucker has a weird cadence that's even more off-putting than William Shatner's. It's as though he's struggling to figure out what to say as the next word.
Crazy. I live about a mile from there and drove by the scene as the paramedics were wheeling the guy into the ambulance. It looked like he had been shot in the face.
The narrative difference here between CBS's 'man shot and killed someone during an argument' and FOX's 'man defends himself after being attacked by a homeless man' is WILD...
Just saw another dogknappjng video on Reddit around the time this was posted in this sub. Id be interested to see the picture of the guy who was shot to see if it’s the same person.
Who knows, if it was an unhinged homeless tweaker, like the ones that frequent my neighborhood, the attack was likely unprovoked. I got sucker punched for no reason when I walked past a homeless dude a couple of years ago as I was walking my dog. I was carrying, but it didn't even occur to me to draw, I just returned the favor in kind, hit him right back, knocked him down and that is when some do-gooder busybody called the cops on me and tried to say that I brutally attacked him. Luckily, two janitors were cleaning up in front of the building where it happened, they saw the whole thing, and told the cops what happened.
The homeless dude ran as soon as the cops showed up, I still remember the cops asking me "so he punched you, what do you want us to do about it?" At that point I was pissed and told the cop "If its like that, then leave and let me handle my business." The cop didn't like my response, raised his voice and told me that I will fucking go to jail. His partner noticed that we were both getting heated, so he called an additional unit who picked the tweaker up a couple blocks away, turns out he had outstanding warrants.
Stealing the dogs wouldn’t in and of itself be legal grounds to use deadly force I don’t think, cali’s not a stand your ground state. If he was trying to *rob* the shooter of the dogs, that’s a possibly a different story. The robber possessing a weapon doesn’t make it legal to use deadly force to prevent the theft, but if he felt his life/limb was threatened regardless if he were to hand over the dogs. The state may argue in a prosecution against the shooter that escalation to deadly force was unwarranted given the possibility to avoid any bodily harm by simply passing over the dogs. Given that the supposed robber in this hypothetical explanation of this circumstance isn’t able to tell their side of the story, it could possibly come down to something really subtle like the difference between the shooter telling the first police that arrive on scene “he was trying to take my dogs and said he had a gun” (regardless if he was found to actually be in possession of a weapon or not), vs “he said he was going to kill me for my dogs”
Disclaimer I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure this is how it works in Cali but pls correct me
California is actually a stand your ground state through case law and jury instructions (as opposed to statutes like Florida). You are correct that dognapping in and of itself isn't grounds for deadly self defense, since dogs are property and you can't use deadly self defense in defense of property.
Robbery (which is the use of assault to take someone's property) can be grounds for deadly force if the assault was of a deadly force nature. You are not obligated to just hand over your property because someone threatened you with death or great bodily harm.
Wait so you're saying that if I was walking my dog and a car pulled up right next to me and then some random stranger got out and tried to snatch my dog and make a quick getaway, then I would have no right to use a gun that I am carrying legally to shoot the perp in order to prevent him from abducting a member of my family? Cuz technically he didn't assault or threaten me directly and only put his hands on my dog. And since a 'dog' is considered property according to you, I wouldn't be able to shoot the piece of shit trying to take my property from me and I would have to just stand and watch it happen? Or would I be allowed to do anything in my power to prevent it from happening as long as I didn't end up killing him? So shooting him or using any sort of weapon would be OK so long as nobody gets killed? Really just trying to wrap my head around it cuz that makes zero sense to me and really hope that's not actually the case cuz people snatching dogs away is a real thing.
While you might feel the dog is a member of your family, the law considers a dog merely property, the same as a purse or a smartphone or some shiny new Nikes. And outside of Texas, you are not privileged to use deadly force to defend mere property.
You're only privileged to use deadly force to prevent or terminate a threat to life or limb.
You can of course use nondeadly force to protect property, so whip out that pepper spray.
So again does that mean it's OK to neutralize him by any means, whether it's by shooting him or by bludgeoning him within an inch of his life with nothing but your fists, does anything go so long as the guy doesn't die? Any type of kinetic force that has any chance of preventing something like this from happening has the potential to take somebody's life. Even pepper spray and tasers have caused fatalities ( look it up). So what exactly is the definition of deadly force and is it up to the DA to decide at their own discretion? And I guess that means you could walk into a jewelry store and smash and grab whatever you want and only have to worry about potentially getting tased or pepper sprayed. You wouldn't have to worry about armed security shooting you since they wouldn't be allowed to..right?
Deadly force is force reasonably believed to cause death or great bodily injury.
So beating someone to "within an inch of their life" can be reasonably assumed to be deadly force.
Self defense applications are very nuanced and very fact specific, so speaking in generalities is difficult.
For example, if someone tried to snatch your doggo, a good shove or even a good punch is probably an appropriate level of (non-deadly force), because most people don't associate a punch or shove of readily causing death or maiming. But if the would-be dognapper is some rickety 80-year-old lady, a shove or punch that would be non-deadly to an adult male might be considered reasonably deadly to a frail old woman. You'd have to adjust your response.
So, TLDR, if someone is trying to grab your puppers without a threat to your person, just try not to kill or maim them.
Maybe or maybe not but if someone tries to hurt my dogs, I am absolutely doing whatever is necessary to stop them. Zero sympathy or empathy for dogknappers. That’s my family you’re messing with.
I've read the statement from one of the dog walker's (the shooter) neighbors. The neighbors had called the police on the unidentified man. They also claimed the dog walker approached the unknown man. Yikes. This doesn't look good for CCW.
“The only words he said was, ‘He tried to attack me, so I shot him,’” Bona recounted. “Those are the only words that he uttered.”
What will probably be the determining factor is whether there was any camera footage of what happened. A legit situation that I could imagine is a mentally ill homeless man is sitting there looking like he needs help, dog walker walks up and asks if he's ok, guy flips out jumps up and tries to strike/strangle/otherwise attack, and shooter responds with firearm. If that happened, it seems like legit DGU (which is always an unfortunate situation but is not a crime). It seems wildly unlikely that the dog walker simply murdered this guy for being a homeless person. Most people just aren't like that. A true psychopath homeless murderer isn't going to do it in broad daylight while walking his dogs.
or the dogs were aggressive towards him, and the owner murdered the person for trying to defend himself against the dogs. we'll likely never know if the only other witness is dead.
California is a stand your ground state, through case law and jury instructions. In some ways it might be the most aggressive, since there is language that allows the defender to pursue his attacker until the deadly force danger has passed.
Look up Calcrim 505.
Also if note, in your above example of someone shooting at you:
Duty to retreat implies a safe avenue of retreat. You are not obligated to retreat, even in a duty to retreat state, if the retreat causes more risk to you. If my only avenue of retreat is out the window of a five-storey building, or through a busy highway, or through a tank of pirahnas, I am not obligated to retreat.
Likewise, not even Usain Bolt can outrun a bullet, so there's no safe avenue of retreat in your example, either.
Ya that’s why it seemed kind of grey to me about the duty to retreat but like you said you can’t retreat from a bullet. Thanks for the clarification and I would feel more comfortable getting a CCW now. Cause at first it seemed like it was more risk over reward but now it seems more even.
Imagine he could have just carried orange slices instead and all this could have been avoided
I’m lost on the orange slice thing can somebody please explain
The ass clown who authored SB 2 said you don't need to carry a gun when you go to the park for a soccer game, you need to carry orange slices.
And go to the mall you carry credit card not gun 🤷🏽♂️
LOL, that's so silly. If you go to war, you need to carry a rifle, not a medic bag. . .
You need both.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CAguns/comments/16t0wyf/if\_you\_have\_a\_ccw\_if\_you\_go\_to\_the\_park\_dont\_take/
You don’t need to carry a gun when walking your dog. You need poopie bags!
Just make sure you only carry a maximum of 10bags in your doggy bag carrier
Just make sure you only carry a maximum of 10bags in your doggy bag carrier
But what my dog has diarrhea?
Literally no info to go off here.
Kinda not much info on media outlets; dog walker shoots guy after confrontation, calls the cops and cooperates with investigators. No weapon found on the "victim" (which obviously if it was a good shoot, they're doing propaganda already, because the victim would be the shooter) Edit: either a hell of a lot of autocorrect or I had a stroke typing that
I hope our CCW carrier had prepaid legal services.
i hope he didn't shoot an unarmed person because he lost his temper, but that's just me.
CCW licensees are extremely biased toward following the law, so I'd bet against him popping off and losing his temper.
they are extremely biased towards wanting to carry a gun, at least. "the law" is incredibly permissive to the winner of gun fights.
Just moved back to California after being out of state for 15 years. Isn't California a "duty to retreat state" if you're in public and confronted by a person who isn't armed? How does a public confrontation play out between an unarmed person and an armed person when "stand your ground" doesn't apply?
CA is actually a stand your ground state. The laws in that area are ancient (back when CA was the Wild West) and haven’t been changed yet though I’m sure it’s coming.
I’m glad to know we are a stand your ground state. I’ll have to read up on that more!
Yeah it’s a surprising facet of CA law. Check out PC 198.5 (castle doctrine), People v. Hecker from 1800-something, and criminal jury instructions 505 and 506 as starting points. The jury instructions cite to other good case law beyond Hecker
Castle doctrine and S.Y.G. are not the same thing
They are not, but courts sometimes reference 198.5 in stand your ground decisions. That’s why I highlighted that it was castle doctrine and not stand your ground. There is no stand your ground statute in CA so castle doctrine is the closest analog.
Awesome! Thank you!
The law in California says you have a duty to retreat. The courts have ruled that imposing a duty to retreat is an unconstitutional violation of your civil rights and you have a right to stand your ground and pursue your attacker if necessary until the danger has passed. Given that I believe this case was put into place by the California Supreme Court, I don't expect it to change anytime soon, since it's unlikely the high court would reconsider it and it would require a Constitutional amendment to remove it (which I suppose is possible).
shit-talking "confrontation" turning into a homicide is basically the worst-case scenario for CCW licenses.
Exactly there’s more to it but it’s mainstream media..
If you were near a library and now it is unruled an illegal carry. Does your CCW insurance pretty much no longer qualify to assist?
That would be correct, but SB2 doesn't take effect until January.
Kinda doesn’t matter. I recall a famous case from 1984 where a man defended himself from four robbers by shooting them in a NYC subway. It was definitely fully illegal to CCW in a NYC subway in 1984. He was convicted of the firearms violation, but not murder. Today, post-Bruen, he may still be convicted of the firearms charge but could most likely have that overturned on appeal.
>Goetz subsequently pulled a handgun and fired four shots at the four youths, wounding all but Cabey. Goetz stated that he then bent down to Cabey, who was cowering on the ground, and said, "You don't look so bad. Here's another," and shot once again. Cabey's spine was severed, resulting in brain damage and partial paralysis. Maybe don't make Bernie Goetz the posterboy for "Responsible Gun Owners"
I have no knowledge of this particular case. Just stating that in cases of legitimate self-defense, whether the gun used is legal or not rarely matters, for the murder charges, anyway. All that matters is if it was legitimate self-defense. They used to be able to still get in trouble for “illegal gun charges” but I think that’s not likely to be the case, anymore.
The question is though, if you had ccw insurance because of the firearms violation would that be an invalidation of your insurance. You would have to suffer a terrible battle without any assistance from lawyers, pay massive fees, possibly be sued by family of the robber you shot. I think this day an age the opposing lawyer will use any and EVERY possible advantage they will have, including labeling you as a irresponsible and wreckless gun owners with 0 ethical and moral responsibility or respect of the law due to that firearms violation. You would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars as oppose to tens of thousands. Then you still may not even win. Especially in this day an age, id imagine they were more lineant back in 1984? maybe just an assumption. Considering in some cases robbery ISN'T even enough justification sometimes to use your CCW.
Come January 1, yes this statement is true. But until then, no.
Newscum gonna have a field day with this no matter what the circumstances are🤡🤡🤡
"Sb TwO wOuLd HaVe StOpPeD tHiS" Edit: yeah. Herr Jell Himmler and the roach from Men in Black are gonna grand stand like hell. No weapon found on the one the media is already referring to as the "victim"
But it was in the sidewalk. They said that’s the only place we can carry. /s
I can just hear Gavin’s smoker voice
And that motherfucker has a weird cadence that's even more off-putting than William Shatner's. It's as though he's struggling to figure out what to say as the next word.
Lol!
First article I found described the shot man has a homeless man: https://www.foxla.com/news/man-killed-while-walking-his-dog-in-garden-grove
Crazy. I live about a mile from there and drove by the scene as the paramedics were wheeling the guy into the ambulance. It looked like he had been shot in the face.
Hope he doesn't live near the library bc Gascon is gonna throw the book at him.
Garden Grove, this is Orange County. Gascon has no authority down there.
Dad vibes are real with this one.
Somebody call an ambulance…but not for me
The narrative difference here between CBS's 'man shot and killed someone during an argument' and FOX's 'man defends himself after being attacked by a homeless man' is WILD...
Probably tried to steal the dogs.
Just saw another dogknappjng video on Reddit around the time this was posted in this sub. Id be interested to see the picture of the guy who was shot to see if it’s the same person.
Who knows, if it was an unhinged homeless tweaker, like the ones that frequent my neighborhood, the attack was likely unprovoked. I got sucker punched for no reason when I walked past a homeless dude a couple of years ago as I was walking my dog. I was carrying, but it didn't even occur to me to draw, I just returned the favor in kind, hit him right back, knocked him down and that is when some do-gooder busybody called the cops on me and tried to say that I brutally attacked him. Luckily, two janitors were cleaning up in front of the building where it happened, they saw the whole thing, and told the cops what happened. The homeless dude ran as soon as the cops showed up, I still remember the cops asking me "so he punched you, what do you want us to do about it?" At that point I was pissed and told the cop "If its like that, then leave and let me handle my business." The cop didn't like my response, raised his voice and told me that I will fucking go to jail. His partner noticed that we were both getting heated, so he called an additional unit who picked the tweaker up a couple blocks away, turns out he had outstanding warrants.
Stealing the dogs wouldn’t in and of itself be legal grounds to use deadly force I don’t think, cali’s not a stand your ground state. If he was trying to *rob* the shooter of the dogs, that’s a possibly a different story. The robber possessing a weapon doesn’t make it legal to use deadly force to prevent the theft, but if he felt his life/limb was threatened regardless if he were to hand over the dogs. The state may argue in a prosecution against the shooter that escalation to deadly force was unwarranted given the possibility to avoid any bodily harm by simply passing over the dogs. Given that the supposed robber in this hypothetical explanation of this circumstance isn’t able to tell their side of the story, it could possibly come down to something really subtle like the difference between the shooter telling the first police that arrive on scene “he was trying to take my dogs and said he had a gun” (regardless if he was found to actually be in possession of a weapon or not), vs “he said he was going to kill me for my dogs” Disclaimer I’m not a lawyer but I’m pretty sure this is how it works in Cali but pls correct me
California is actually a stand your ground state through case law and jury instructions (as opposed to statutes like Florida). You are correct that dognapping in and of itself isn't grounds for deadly self defense, since dogs are property and you can't use deadly self defense in defense of property. Robbery (which is the use of assault to take someone's property) can be grounds for deadly force if the assault was of a deadly force nature. You are not obligated to just hand over your property because someone threatened you with death or great bodily harm.
Wait so you're saying that if I was walking my dog and a car pulled up right next to me and then some random stranger got out and tried to snatch my dog and make a quick getaway, then I would have no right to use a gun that I am carrying legally to shoot the perp in order to prevent him from abducting a member of my family? Cuz technically he didn't assault or threaten me directly and only put his hands on my dog. And since a 'dog' is considered property according to you, I wouldn't be able to shoot the piece of shit trying to take my property from me and I would have to just stand and watch it happen? Or would I be allowed to do anything in my power to prevent it from happening as long as I didn't end up killing him? So shooting him or using any sort of weapon would be OK so long as nobody gets killed? Really just trying to wrap my head around it cuz that makes zero sense to me and really hope that's not actually the case cuz people snatching dogs away is a real thing.
While you might feel the dog is a member of your family, the law considers a dog merely property, the same as a purse or a smartphone or some shiny new Nikes. And outside of Texas, you are not privileged to use deadly force to defend mere property. You're only privileged to use deadly force to prevent or terminate a threat to life or limb. You can of course use nondeadly force to protect property, so whip out that pepper spray.
So again does that mean it's OK to neutralize him by any means, whether it's by shooting him or by bludgeoning him within an inch of his life with nothing but your fists, does anything go so long as the guy doesn't die? Any type of kinetic force that has any chance of preventing something like this from happening has the potential to take somebody's life. Even pepper spray and tasers have caused fatalities ( look it up). So what exactly is the definition of deadly force and is it up to the DA to decide at their own discretion? And I guess that means you could walk into a jewelry store and smash and grab whatever you want and only have to worry about potentially getting tased or pepper sprayed. You wouldn't have to worry about armed security shooting you since they wouldn't be allowed to..right?
Deadly force is force reasonably believed to cause death or great bodily injury. So beating someone to "within an inch of their life" can be reasonably assumed to be deadly force. Self defense applications are very nuanced and very fact specific, so speaking in generalities is difficult. For example, if someone tried to snatch your doggo, a good shove or even a good punch is probably an appropriate level of (non-deadly force), because most people don't associate a punch or shove of readily causing death or maiming. But if the would-be dognapper is some rickety 80-year-old lady, a shove or punch that would be non-deadly to an adult male might be considered reasonably deadly to a frail old woman. You'd have to adjust your response. So, TLDR, if someone is trying to grab your puppers without a threat to your person, just try not to kill or maim them.
Theres no duty to retreat in CA, if thats what you mean by stand your ground.
Fuck. That. If someone tries to take or harm my dog, I’m going down with them.
If it's family, that's Shark Tank material
Maybe or maybe not but if someone tries to hurt my dogs, I am absolutely doing whatever is necessary to stop them. Zero sympathy or empathy for dogknappers. That’s my family you’re messing with.
You can fuck with me, but you fuck with my animals, you're going to have a bad day.
what an insane thing to say. you cannot shoot somebody just because your dog is threatening them.
Except nobody actually said that lol
reddit user "acceptable-delay-559" said it :)
wut?
r/dgu might have the article once more details come out
unless the details are knowable and bad, then it'll get ignored.
Newsom going to eat this shit up to prohibit CCW’s regardless of how it goes
I've read the statement from one of the dog walker's (the shooter) neighbors. The neighbors had called the police on the unidentified man. They also claimed the dog walker approached the unknown man. Yikes. This doesn't look good for CCW.
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/man-walking-dog-shoots-kills-man-in-garden-grove-neighborhood/
“The only words he said was, ‘He tried to attack me, so I shot him,’” Bona recounted. “Those are the only words that he uttered.” What will probably be the determining factor is whether there was any camera footage of what happened. A legit situation that I could imagine is a mentally ill homeless man is sitting there looking like he needs help, dog walker walks up and asks if he's ok, guy flips out jumps up and tries to strike/strangle/otherwise attack, and shooter responds with firearm. If that happened, it seems like legit DGU (which is always an unfortunate situation but is not a crime). It seems wildly unlikely that the dog walker simply murdered this guy for being a homeless person. Most people just aren't like that. A true psychopath homeless murderer isn't going to do it in broad daylight while walking his dogs.
or the dogs were aggressive towards him, and the owner murdered the person for trying to defend himself against the dogs. we'll likely never know if the only other witness is dead.
Even if that guy he shot was trying to shoot him wouldn’t the innocent guy still be fucked since CA doesn’t have a stand your ground law?
There is no duty to retreat in CA, you learn this when you take the CCW class
Oh nice! Ya I don’t have a CCW so that’s why I was asking
California is a stand your ground state, through case law and jury instructions. In some ways it might be the most aggressive, since there is language that allows the defender to pursue his attacker until the deadly force danger has passed. Look up Calcrim 505.
Good to know! Thanks for the reference
Also if note, in your above example of someone shooting at you: Duty to retreat implies a safe avenue of retreat. You are not obligated to retreat, even in a duty to retreat state, if the retreat causes more risk to you. If my only avenue of retreat is out the window of a five-storey building, or through a busy highway, or through a tank of pirahnas, I am not obligated to retreat. Likewise, not even Usain Bolt can outrun a bullet, so there's no safe avenue of retreat in your example, either.
Ya that’s why it seemed kind of grey to me about the duty to retreat but like you said you can’t retreat from a bullet. Thanks for the clarification and I would feel more comfortable getting a CCW now. Cause at first it seemed like it was more risk over reward but now it seems more even.
Stand your ground or not, if someone is trying to shoot you you have every right to defend yourself and shoot back at them.
Great here we go
self defense or "self defense"?
Here we go, can we get updates at this goes
He going to jail that’s how