New California Bill Would Make Self-Defense Illegal, If You Didn't Try To 'Escape The Situation' First.
- Thread starter jawnswoop
- Start date
Only in that retarded state. Quarter of the state on fire and can’t get insurance. They running out of money and this is on the agenda. 
@Dr. Truth come get ya people.
@Dr. Truth come get ya people.
Last edited:
Not every situation you can escape from, so how can they prosecute for not being able to flee but only have the choice of fighting or being victimized
That some crazy shit, how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have nowhere to escape first?
These some dumb ass laws....
When shit don't sound right .. I always fact check it... Bad habit..I know.
momsdemandaction.org
FACT SHEET: AB 1333 is Life-Saving Legislation Aimed at Preventing Those Who Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Last week, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur introduced AB 1333 to update the state’s self-defense laws. The legislation explicitly clarifies that Californians must avoid resorting to fatal actions …
momsdemandaction.org
When shit don't sound right .. I always fact check it... Bad habit..I know.
FACT SHEET: AB 1333 is Life-Saving Legislation Aimed at Preventing Those Who Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Last week, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur introduced AB 1333 to update the state’s self-defense laws. The legislation explicitly clarifies that Californians must avoid resorting to fatal actions …
The article you linked is a very misleading description of the law. Of course it doesn’t pertain to someone actively being assaulted.
“
- MYTH: This bill makes it illegal for Californians to defend themselves unless you first flee.
- This is false. If a person is under attack, and it’s necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves from serious harm, they are still entitled to use deadly force. What this legislation does is make clear that Californians must avoid killing others if it’s not truly necessary—that they must de-escalate or disengage if possible.”
It is mainly focused on the scenario of someone shooting a home intruder. If this law passes, if someone breaks into your house, the expectation is that you exhaust all efforts to flee your home with your family, rather than grab your gun to protect your home and family.
The reality is that no man on here actually agrees with this proposal, but political allegiances will motivate brothers on here to defend this BS.
Last edited:
This is another law that emboldens criminals. We all know inherently that criminals don't obey the law... that's what makes them criminals.
People who desire to abide by the law are always going to be torn and at a disadvantage: "Do I abide by the law now, or do I protect my family at all costs?" It's a no-brainer for me, I'm protecting my family.
In a stressful and potentially dangerous situation, who has time to wonder about a criminal's intentions? Is he just coming in like "Bruh-Man" to make a sammich? Or, is he coming in to rape, murder, or steal? I shouldn't have to worry about that shit when another person is trying to enter my home uninvited.
The people who make these laws up usually have police protection of some sort. While the citizens have to call the police when something is happening. We're always placed in a state of "reacting."
I'm not with this law at all. I will be writing my representatives on this one. Even though I know that they aren't going to do shit!
People who desire to abide by the law are always going to be torn and at a disadvantage: "Do I abide by the law now, or do I protect my family at all costs?" It's a no-brainer for me, I'm protecting my family.
In a stressful and potentially dangerous situation, who has time to wonder about a criminal's intentions? Is he just coming in like "Bruh-Man" to make a sammich? Or, is he coming in to rape, murder, or steal? I shouldn't have to worry about that shit when another person is trying to enter my home uninvited.
The people who make these laws up usually have police protection of some sort. While the citizens have to call the police when something is happening. We're always placed in a state of "reacting."
I'm not with this law at all. I will be writing my representatives on this one. Even though I know that they aren't going to do shit!
That some crazy shit, how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have nowhere to escape first?
These some dumb ass laws....
That some crazy shit, how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have nowhere to escape first?
These some dumb ass laws....
Is there a duty to retreat?
DC law uses the “middle ground” standard between the right to stand and kill and the duty to retreat. Though there is no absolute duty to retreat in DC, the jury may consider whether the defendant could have retreated to safety when assessing whether the defendant “was actually or apparently in imminent danger of [death or serious] bodily harm.”[3]The idea behind this standard is that the jury can consider whether the defendant could have avoided using deadly force by escaping or walking away at the moment that s/he used deadly force. DC has not squarely adopted the “Castile Doctrine”, which is when the law does not require a duty to retreat when a person is within their own home. DC courts have held, however, that the castle doctrine does not apply in the situation where one co-occupant uses deadly force against their roommate or another occupant of the same home.
It doesn't change the California castle doctorine.This is another law that emboldens criminals. We all know inherently that criminals don't obey the law... that's what makes them criminals.
People who desire to abide by the law are always going to be torn and at a disadvantage: "Do I abide by the law now, or do I protect my family at all costs?" It's a no-brainer for me, I'm protecting my family.
In a stressful and potentially dangerous situation, who has time to wonder about a criminal's intentions? Is he just coming in like "Bruh-Man" to make a sammich? Or, is he coming in to rape, murder, or steal? I shouldn't have to worry about that shit when another person is trying to enter my home uninvited.
The people who make these laws up usually have police protection of some sort. While the citizens have to call the police when something is happening. We're always placed in a state of "reacting."
I'm not with this law at all. I will be writing my representatives on this one. Even though I know that they aren't going to do shit!
Pretty much all the castle doctrine laws were passed because of these run first laws.
I wish there was a good middle ground between the two.
I wish there was a good middle ground between the two.
It also means you can't shoot someone immediately for a perceived threat.
It has to be the absolute last resort, and you better hope you can prove that in court.
You mean a cac can't shoot a black man immediately because he assumed he was going to get robbed?
Naw the law dosent work in the Blackman favor like that… a Blackman probably can’t kill a bunch of racist cacs that were immediate threats to his life.. that’s how that law would be pushed
ktla.com
Sheriff Bianco claims new California bill would make self-defense illegal
Tony Kurzweil
2 - 3 minutes
‘Riverside County sheriff and gubernatorial candidate Chad Bianco says a recently introduced bill in the California State Assembly would “make self-defense against criminals illegal.”
AB 1333 was introduced by Assembly Member Rick Zbur of Santa Monica on Feb. 21.
According to the California Legislative Information website, the bill seeks to “eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”
The description goes on to say that “the bill would additionally clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.”
In a statement on Tuesday, Sheriff Bianco said the bill would tie the hands of residents while coddling criminals.
“Sacramento Democrats have spent the last 15 years tying the hands of law enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in their attempt to make criminals the real victims,” Bianco said. “Now, they’re actively trying to tie the hands of our residents, who have had to defend themselves against re-released career criminals far too often.”
Zbur responded to backlash over the bill.
“AB 1333 was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home. The goal is to prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence & claiming self defense after the fact. We will amend the bill to make this crystal clear,” Zbur’s post on X stated.
Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020 in an altercation during a police protest. He was charged with homicide but pleaded self-defense and was acquitted.
“I look forward to testifying against this bill. I’ll see you in California,” Rittenhouse commented in response to Zbur’s post.
Bianco announced his candidacy on Feb. 17.
Just stop it, it says nothing about not defending yourself. If you can walk away do it, if you can't and have to defend yourself you defend yourself.
I took a conceal weapons class years ago, and even back then the cops holding the class said if you have a intruder your first objective should be leaving the house with your family, if you can't leave then you resort to self defense.
You were the one that said a cac can’t shoot a Blackman..I just said the law don’t work in the favor of a Blackman and said this is how that scenario would really work.. just giving your response an actual logical reply
Where is the logic? You saying black people cannot defend themselves against white people?
Sounds like some holdover Gavin Newsom type shit.
I would guess this type of legislation would attempt to close some of the loopholes for the self-defense excuse for people who deliberately execute someone and use it as a technicality. You get into a gunfight with someone and you shoot them, and instead of fleeing, you shoot them a bunch more times and say it was self defense.
This law will lose the first time it goes to court and the lawyer says "Your honor, my client has not been formally trained in de-escalation tactics." "There is no avenue in this state for mandatory free de-escalation training, therefore they couldn't possibly properly de-escalate...yada, yada, yada, etc.
I would guess this type of legislation would attempt to close some of the loopholes for the self-defense excuse for people who deliberately execute someone and use it as a technicality. You get into a gunfight with someone and you shoot them, and instead of fleeing, you shoot them a bunch more times and say it was self defense.
This law will lose the first time it goes to court and the lawyer says "Your honor, my client has not been formally trained in de-escalation tactics." "There is no avenue in this state for mandatory free de-escalation training, therefore they couldn't possibly properly de-escalate...yada, yada, yada, etc.
Last edited:
no the logical response that i gave you about the law was it being the reverse of what you said
I was trying to escape the situation with my life by shooting them, stabbing them or trying to fuck them up!!
Doesn't Mass. have something similar? If someone breaks in your home, try to leave and call the police from outside, or something like that.
Yup. I just looked it up...
Legal Obligations: Retreat and Warn Intruders
Massachusetts stands apart from states with “stand your ground” laws by having an “obligation to retreat” provision, meaning individuals generally must make reasonable attempts at avoidance before resorting to violence against any intruder in their home or using force against an invader.Massachusetts law doesn’t require homeowners to warn intruders before using force if such a warning would heighten the risk of harm or danger.
Homeowners in Massachusetts should comprehend their legal obligations regarding retreat and warning.
As homeowners acquaint themselves with Massachusetts Law provisions on this matter, they will be better prepared to grasp their rights and responsibilities should a threat arise within their home. Consult with a criminal attorney Boston for comprehensive legal guidance tailored to your specific situation.
Thanks! I learned that in one of my law courses in college, but I didn't know if that was still the case, being that it was so long ago.
