What does "Reasonable Force" mean to you?

[Keystonecop]

Not my place as a Texas non attorney to advise you of my opinion…it’s irrelevant. What I hope you did was request a jury trial so that you can argue your case that the defendant was in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury from this gaggle, and that his participation that led up to the use of force was not contributed to by his own actions. Hypothetical, your client goes to a bar, has a few, gets into a monkey dance with someone else. Leaves the establishment followed by the other fellow and five of his friends who set upon your client who gets hold of a firearms and shoots one multiple times. A self defense strategy probably wouldn’t work. Good luck

[Zavier_D]

@Johnnyq60

Any time a prosecutor tries a self defense case he would always ask a jury this question. “Is this what a reasonable person would have done?

A “Reasonable Person” is predicated on the defendant. Your “Reasonable Person” would be entirely different, than say, my “Reasonable Person” would be.

[Mike164]

The jury I sat on, a self defense case. The judge was very careful to explain that. A reasonable response based upon YOUR understanding of the facts presented at trial. As a side note, on that jury, of the 12 of us, 4 of us understood the part of the evidence where the live round was on the ground in front of the guy and the brass was behind where he was standing. How in the world could they determine what reasonable use of a firearm is when most had not actually held one in their hands.

[Zavier_D]

@Arash

My client was originally charged with attempted murder

You are leaving out some very important parts.

1. Where are the 6 rounds at on the 1st one?
   A) Are any of them in the back, which would point towards the 1st one was fleeing?

2. Are any of the rounds from above? Which would indicate the first subject was down and your client stood over and continued to shoot, after he had stopped the threat from the 1st subject?

Reasonable Force is highly subjective, and it is going to matter with my two questions.

If he fired 6 rounds into the front torso and that stopped the threat. That could be the force necessary.

However, if he put 2 in the chest, 3 in the back while he was running away, and stood over him while he was down to put one in his head. That’s going to put him in the area of excessive force.

The number of shots and placement of those shots is going to matter and the forensics of the crime scene is going to answer a lot of that.

From what you have said, I don’t know the answer to my 2 questions. From the information given, your “client” will not have a case for self defense. Since he was chasing them. It would seem your “client” would have also used “Excessive Force” if any of the rounds that killed the first subject were fired while he chased them.

Because this is 2 separate incidents. Possibly even 3. Why did the 4 guys follow him out of the convenience store? Were they trying to rob him? Did a confrontation happen inside the store

My one caveat

1. Unless all 6 of those rounds are in the front of the body of the first subject.

I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV, and I did not spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.

YMMV.

[Zavier_D]

@Arash

So the judge reduced the charge from an attempted murder to a voluntary manslaughter.

“In Penal Code 192 PC, California law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being that occurs. during a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, or; based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend oneself”.

Nowhere in the charge, as you laid it out, does excessive force become an issue for Voluntary Manslaughter.

This is going to be the problem.

based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend oneself".

Since it is a head injury, delivered hard enough to have crushed his Left Orbital. I would look at possibly trying to argue that it was not an unreasonable belief.

As an “attorney” you will know that a Reasonable Man is based off of your “client” and his abilities at that time". Having just received a crushing blow to the head, I think you could, possibly make a case for self defense off of his mental state having just had such a traumatic blow inflicted to his head.

I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV, and I did not spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.

YMMV

[Zavier_D]

@Arash

My client was originally charged with attempted murder. At a hearing, the judge agreed that my client had a right to self-defense but stated that the force used by my client was excessive and beyond what was needed. So the judge reduced the charge from an attempted murder to a voluntary manslaughter.

Also, the 2 charges do not mesh.

Attempted Murder: Under Penal Code 664/187(a) PC, attempted murder in California is when the perpetrator intends to kill the victim and takes a direct step towards killing the person, but the victim does not die.

Voluntary Manslaughter.

In Penal Code 192 PC, California law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being that occurs. during a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, or; based on an honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend oneself.

I am going to assume that you are acting in good faith and that the subject died between the filing of the original Attempted Murder charge, and the Voluntary Manslaughter charges.

1. Attempted Murder: victim does not die.

2. Voluntary Manslaughter: unlawful killing of a human being.

The imprecision of your described charges, and posting on a public forum are what make me feel that you are acting in bad faith.

YMMV

[George98]

@Arash

The guy ran away and my client followed, emptying his gun (6 rounds).

Hope that might help

In my never to be humble opinion if he chased the perp he was not in the act of self defense. He became the aggressor!

[Arash]

@Zavier_D, the amended complaint was for Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter - PC 667/192

[Zavier_D]

@Arash Words matter.

However; In the cases I have looked at. The Judges instructions to juries have all hinged on the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief of imminent Grievous Bodily Harm and/or Death.

Nothing about excessive force. You also can not include fear of future Grievous Bodily Harm and/or Death.

So again, it will come down to the reasonableness of your “client”.

[BeanCounter]

Asked in a different thread, here’s where gun enhancements could possibly add three years to the sentence if found guilty.

We have to include mental training to master our emotions and adrenaline rush.
Ice in our veins.

[Johnnyq60]

Correct @Zavier_D
What is reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another. Thats why the person who is on trial has to be able to articulate why it was reasonable to them.

[Karacal]

Thank you @MikeBKY for chiming in👍

[CHARLES514]

CalJIC which are the approved jury instructions for the judge to give to the jury before retiring for deliberation certainly defines “reasonable man” and goes into detail on reasonable force in a self-defense case. Any attorney who is defending a murder/manslaughter case certainly should avail himself of CalJIC and the cases cited in the footnotes. Is this your first murder defense? If it is, why are you winging it? Why haven’t you brought in experienced associate counsel? Why are you soliciting legal advice on a public forum from non-lawyers who may not even be from California? Why don’t you buy an expensive lunch at Musso and Frank’s for a leading deputy public defender who has several successful murder defenses to his name and pick his brain?

I would seriously recommend that you bring in an experienced associate for this case. I spent 25 years as a court reporter, many of them in California superior court and I think you need professional help.

[David237]

Um, I probably could agree, but I never claimed to be an attorney. This is not my hypothetical, sorry, I’m not the Op.

[Arash]

lol Thank you @CHARLES514 for the advice. No, this is not my first murder case, and no I am not asking any one for legal advice.
I am merely gauging the opinion of lay people to get a sense of what potential jurors think like.

[BeanCounter]

@Arash

to get a sense of what potential jurors think like.

Reading the posts, it seems selecting gun owners as jurors does not guarantee a favorable vote in self-defense cases.
No pro-2A bias. Interesting.

[Shamrock]

@Arash

I am merely gauging the opinion of lay people to get a sense of what potential jurors think like.

I suspect that the opinion of the majority of people here would be a poor predictor for what to expect from a likely jury pool in SoCal. Most jurors are unlikely to have ever put any thought or study into the complexities involved in a self defense situation and will possibly be swayed more by emotion than reasoned facts since they have no training, study or experience to compare this event to. I suspect that many folks are here, as I am, to learn from events like this so we will be better able to effectively and legally defend ourselves and our families should we ever find ourselves imminently threatened by violent criminals. So while most of us are not legal experts I wouldn’t think of us as your typical laypeople on this topic either.

Also without seeing the video the jury is going to be shown we are left to draw conclusions based on far too few details. The opinions here would likely change significantly with a much clearer picture of what actually happened.

[Zavier_D]

@Shamrock

I suspect that the opinion of the majority of people here would be a poor predictor for what to expect from a likely jury pool in SoCal.

Wonder if that could be a legitimate argument for a change of venue. As finding a jury of his “peers” would be hard to do in SoCal.

[BeanCounter]

@Zavier_D

finding a jury of his “peers” would be hard to do in SoCal

…but easier in Nor-Cal

[Orpackrat]

6 shots…

If thats excessive, what happens when the police have to empty a mag or 2 just to get one person to stop attacking???