Parameters of home defense

I have a question about the use of lethal and non-lethal self defense at home, in particular for someone that lives in L.A. County. (Unfortunately, I live at the southeastern edge of this county, very close to the borders between L.A. and Orange counties, and L.A. and San Bernardino counties). This is pertaining to others in my home, not me. I have gold membership and I understand that others at my home address who use self defense are also covered. But my question pertains to the boundaries or parameters. Does that include the porch and patio areas of my home? Or does it include the front and back yards with grass, plants, trees, etc.? Or does USCCA only cover the home’s interior? What are the geographical limits of home coverage?

3 Likes

I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

Depends upon whether you live in a Castle Doctrine state or not.

2 Likes

Surprisingly, CA has Castle Doctrine and stand your ground but most wouldn’t think so, given the rabidly anti-2A sentiments especially in my county. I read that self defense is covered outside of my home but only if the threat is imminent, and other specific conditions must be satisfied. I also read that CA has no duty to retreat and residents are entitled to stand their ground. Shouse California Law Group’s website has information about that, and the author of that information was a former L.A. prosecutor. But I want to be extra careful about this.

2 Likes

Under Castle Doctrine you are allowed to defend yourself if someone attempts to forcibly remove you from your home, your curtilage (means your attached property, and your vehicle.

But I would ask an attorney for a better definition.

3 Likes

I had an experience with this a few years ago. It only went as far as hands on. I was able to literally throw him out of the house and as I was then proceeding in throwing him over a pony wall he submitted. Sheriffs and paramedics came, took him to the hospital and finished up with him there.

Here’s quite a bit of information but it good information directly from CA.gov websites for the legislator and courts.

CA PC 198.5 is California’s definition of a “castle doctrine”, yet we do not have a stand your ground law.

This was enacted in 1872, it defines the use of force up to deadly force by a defender against unlawful and forceful acts by a non family member.

I’ve also added CALCRIM 505 and 506, read up on the related issues portion where it states an imperfect self defense will always be questioned if reasonable.

The use of force for defense is for self, family, or household member within the residence.

The attacker must have trespassed, and entered by force and pose a threat within a residence.

The defender must have known the non family member attacker trespassed and used force to enter.

This is all in reference within a residence, not being outside or a surrounding area of a residence is the gray area that will be questionable if it was the reasonable minimum amount of force required.

PENAL CODE - PEN

PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680.4]

( Part 1 enacted 1872. )

TITLE 8. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON [187 - 248]

( Title 8 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 1. Homicide [187 - 199]

( Chapter 1 enacted 1872. )

198.5.

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.

(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1666, Sec. 1.)

B. JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES
505. Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

  1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ )];
  2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;
    AND
  3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.
    Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.
    When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
    [The defendant’s belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true.]
    [If you find that <insert name of decedent/victim> threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
    213

CALCRIM No. 505 HOMICIDE
[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert name of decedent/victim> had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.]
[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name of decedent/victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another).]
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/
) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]
[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.]
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter).

RELATED ISSUES
Imperfect Self-Defense
Most courts hold that an instruction on imperfect self-defense is required in every case in which a court instructs on perfect self-defense. If there is substantial evidence of a defendant’s belief in the need for self-defense, there will always be substantial evidence to support an imperfect self-defense instruction because the reasonableness of that belief will always be at issue. (People v. Ceja (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 78, 85–86 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 475], overruled on other grounds in People
v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 91 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451, 999 P.2d 675]; People v. De Leon (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 815, 824 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 825].) The court in People v. Rodriguez disagreed, however, and found that an imperfect self-defense
instruction was not required sua sponte on the facts of the case where defendant’s version of the crime “could only lead to an acquittal based on justifiable homicide,” and when the prosecutor’s version could only lead to a conviction of first degree murder. (People v. Rodriguez (1992) 53 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1275 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 345]; see also People v. Williams (1997) 4 Cal.4th 354, 362 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 441, 841 P.2d 961] [in rape prosecution, no mistake-of-fact instruction was required when two sides gave wholly divergent accounts with no middle ground to support a mistake-of-fact instruction].)

  1. Justifiable Homicide:

Defending Against Harm to Person Within Home or on Property
The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/she) (killed/attempted to kill) to defend (himself/herself) [or any other person] in the defendant’s home. Such (a/an) [attempted] killing is justified, and therefore not unlawful, if:

  1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she) was defending a home against , who (intended to or tried to commit ___________ / [or] violently[[,] [or] riotously[,]/ [or] tumultuously] tried to enter that home intending to commit an act of violence against someone inside);
  2. The defendant reasonably believed that the danger was imminent;
  3. The defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;
    AND
  4. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.
    Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was imminent danger of violence to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, then the [attempted] killing was not justified.
    When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.
    [A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/bodily injury/) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.]
    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of [attempted] (murder/ [or] manslaughter).
3 Likes

Thanks for your information. I read all of it but I’ll read it again since there’s a lot to digest. I don’t ever imagine having to engage a perpetrator outside of my home but I had one attempted home invasion 2 years ago and two attempted burglaries about a year later…all while home. Given my mother’s age and limited mobility, someone or several people seem to have been scoping our home. Coming home and leaving home is where I’m concerned about the risk of threats.I think the possibility of a criminal(s) confronting either me or any resident that lives in this home outside of the premises is probably very low. But the past events we encountered in a neighborhood that’s considered among the safest in CA shattered that illusion. You can never be too safe.

5 Likes

My understanding is that CA has pretty good self-defense laws, even though they are anti-2A in general.

Castle Doctrine applies to your home and in some states curtilage (porch, deck, driveway, etc), but the limits of curtilage depend on the state and many do NOT extend onto a porch, driveway, etc. I would say that maybe @MikeBKY might know? But he is not a CA attorney (I dont think)…

Then @Dawn can probably answer whether your USCCA coverage extends outside of the home. I am thinking it doesn’t…

3 Likes

For the best information, be sure to check the USCCA Membership Agreement. Here’s what it has to say about who’s a member and the definition of residence premises:


4 Likes

If you are asking about the law of self defense, if it is allowed by law it is allowed by law for everyone in that situation.

If you are asking about having the USCCA provide self defense coverage, it is specific to the terms of the member agreement as @Dawn has posted. That would include members, “resident relatives” and “residents under 21 and in the care of a member” on or in the members “permanent residence” or a member and resident relatives at a temporary residence.

2 Likes

Thank you everyone for responding. I’ll reread the responses and study on this topic more.

3 Likes