Brickbat: Run for Your Life

California Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles) has introduced a bill that would change the state's self-defense laws to require people outside their homes to try escaping safely before using deadly force, even if they're in danger. The bill also says people can't use lethal force just to protect property or homes and limits self-defense claims if someone starts a fight or uses too much force. Critics say the bill is an attack on people's right to protect themselves. Zbur says it's about deterring vigilantes.

Comments

[AT]

Good. This will make the conquering of California much easier once we strip it of its statehood and then invade with overwhelming military force and publicly execute all its hostile leadership.

[Don't look at me! (No longer muted!)]

What’s wrong with vigilantes?

[Vernon Depner]

When government has abdicated its responsibility to bring criminals to justice, nothing.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Self-defending vigilantes? Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

[mad.casual]

It's weird how California keeps emulating these brutal, subsistence, post-apocalyptic landscapes for actual heroes to rise from the ashes of.

[Longtobefree]

There aren't enough of them?

[Vernon Depner]

We must keep Criminals of Color safe from people who arrogantly try to defend themselves.

[Liberty_Belle]

Criminals of color ? Really ? Not criminals ... criminals of color? See, when I try to explain to people that libertarians aren't racists , somebody pulls out a dog whistle.

[Vernon Depner]

Sometimes the truth is painful.

[Vernon Depner]

If the violent criminals against whom Americans need to defend themselves were predominantly white, leftist politicians wouldn't give a shit about armed self-defense.

[Idaho-Bob]

If the majority of criminals in America were white, they'd be passing out USAID free guns to the POCs.

[Flagger]

You will be OK if you say "All libertarians aren't racists."
There are racist in all parties, from far-left through the center to far-right.
Recently, talking to someone about racial progress (which is undeniable), someone said, "Yeah in the old days, I would walk down the street, and 1 in 10 hated me for the color of my skin. Now it's 1 in 100. That's progress, but I still don't feel safe."

[Vernon Depner]

Even 1 in 100 is probably a huge exaggeration. Your friend needs to get off the fear porn.

[Flagger]

I'm not sure of the ratio of racist to non-racists. Is there any objective measure? probably not because the definition is shifting constantly. However, OK, assume it's 1 per 1000 people you meet. Still not reassuring.

[Vernon Depner]

It should be. Americans are irrational about gauging levels of risk. That's why COVID fascism was such a success.

[MollyGodiva]

This is how it should be. Deadly force needs to be used only as a last resort, so ya, if you have an opportunity to get to safely you need to do that. Also it is common that you can’t claim self defense if you attacked them first. And people should not be shot for properly crimes.

[Amal]

Wow, what an absolutely awful take. We should be making it easier to use force to defend yourself, not more difficult. The more violent criminals who get lit up, the more violent crime rates will fall.

Also, people absolutely should get shot for property crimes. If you come and try to steal my vehicle from me, there's hundreds of hours of my life I spent working to purchase that vehicle. Why the hell would I let someone basically enslave me, which is what you're advocating for if you cannot defend your property. And no, "insurance will pay for it" is not a good rejoinder. Because as insurance rates go up because theft/destruction of property goes up, I'm just being enslaved in a roundabout way.

[Davy C]

The bill contains, among other things, that homicide is not justifiable:

>When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger

I for one am surprised that this wasn't already in the law. It's in my state's law.

[Vernon Depner]

When you're under attack, it's no one else's business to decide how much force is "reasonable" for you to use in defense. If you don't agree, then don't attack anyone and you'll be fine.

[Rossami]

That already is the law everywhere. What's different is what counts as "reasonable". CA's definition in statute and precedent is very restrictive.

[Rise of the Impedance]

I'm sure the police will be exempted.

[Vernon Depner]

Of course. The police are the only Americans who are allowed to shoot people simply because they are afraid.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

“Homicide” doesn’t necessarily mean murder.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

No, no, actually, for once, I agree with Molly. She should not be allowed to defend herself.

[Don’t get eliminated]

Fuck off slaver.

[Randy Sax]

You fuckn' shitting me? Someone tries to kill you, you try and kill him right back. Simple.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

I would, as it turns out, strongly prefer that Molly not do that.

[Medulla Oblongata]

When being raped, just lie back and think of England? Don't fight back?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

That’s sure working out well for England now.

[LIBtranslator]

Or Ukraine at Budapest talks. "We trust the Soviet Union's altruistic motives. Here's all our nuclear weapons. We know they'll never break their word and attack us..."

[Rossami]

"you can’t claim self defense if you attacked them first" already is the law everywhere (in the US, at least). Claiming that it's not and trying to use that as a justification of this bill is sloppy.

The rest of your comment is internally consistent even if I disagree deeply with your priorities and choices.

[Fist of Etiquette]

THE UNWASHED MASSES ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO ROLL OVER AND TAKE IT.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Zbur says it's about deterring vigilantes

and quicker, easier wealth redistribution... Wait has anyone told the CA public sector unions, that their turf is being taken over.

[B G]

Zbur is their turf.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

It would be terrible if someone de-Zburred California with a wood chipper.

[Medulla Oblongata]

I read that this guy just got out of prison for his actions..

How a dad made a friend dig his own grave and kill himself after raping daughter, 6

Vyacheslav Matrosov, 35, took the law into his own hands after he found footage of his young daughter being forced to perform sexual acts and confronted the man in the video, Oleg Sviridov, 32.

A Russian father took justice into his own hands when he forced the man who molested his six-year-old daughter to dig his own grave in the forest before persuading him to commit suicide.

Vyacheslav Matrosov, 35, acted outside the law after discovering footage of his young daughter being coerced into sexual acts and confronted Oleg Sviridov, 32, the man in the video.

In a harrowing recording, the child's pleas are audible: "Oleg, that's enough, I can't take it anymore. I want to go home."

The confrontation between Matrosov and Sviridov, who was once a friend and babysitter to the family, ultimately led to Sviridov's death.

Initially, Matrosov faced murder charges, but further investigation revealed that Sviridov's wounds were self-inflicted.

In 2022, Matrosov received an 18-month prison sentence, of which he served 12 months before his release.

Public sentiment in Russia rallied behind Matrosov when it became known that he forced his daughter's abuser to excavate his own burial site in the woods.

[sarcasmic]

Not a surprise being that many on the left equate self defense with vigilantism.

[Tim Broweraz]

Cali is already a dangerous place to live, and harder and harder for good people to stay alive.

[con_fuse9]

California's murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000. Slightly below average for USA it is 7.7 per 100,000 (2022 numbers).
Texas 7.6
Florida 7.2 - Stand your ground baby!

[mad.casual]

California's murder rate is 5.9 per 100,000. Slightly below average for USA it is 7.7 per 100,000 (2022 numbers).

Redefining what was self-defense to be considered a homicide will certainly help fix that discrepancy.

[con_fuse9]

California has a vigilante problem?

[Vernon Depner]

Yes, they do—not enough vigilantes.

[LIBtranslator]

It will if Comrade Chavez-Zebra gets his bill passed. Even non-republicans would prolly toss a few bucks in the hat to pay privateers for that idjit's scalp and fingers.

[mad.casual]

It's like all the free range kid articles where the Mom gets a lecture from the cops about how the local playground is covered with needles and drug users and child molesters and is no place for children to play.

If vigilantism is so bad that you have to criminalize it harder, whatever grasp you think you had is, at best, slipping.

[Liberty_Belle]

Duty to retreat is not about right or wrong, it is about trying to figure out who is at fault. If two testosterone fueled idiots are both claiming stand your ground / self defense / 2a / whatever-isms , then it gets catch-22 on who is aggressor or not. Duty to retreat makes it clear who is who, and best-case scenario they both back off instead of recreating the ok corral. This is mainly for personal disputes, if you are being robbed then all bets are off.

[sarcasmic]

No one makes an effort to try to figure out who is at fault. Cops don't care. They just go with the first one to call 911, even if they know that person was the one in the wrong. It's all a joke to them.

[LIBtranslator]

Of course. That's the whole point of unqualified immunity posing as something else.

[Rossami]

Duty-to-retreat does none of those things. And actual crime statistics in the many jurisdictions that lack a duty-to-retreat law show a shocking lack of OK Corral recreations.

[Vernon Depner]

That scenario is ludicrous fantasy, based on bigoted stereotypes of firearms owners.

[docduracoat]

The great majority of states (35) are stand your ground states.
Only 15 states are duty to retreat states.
Don’t forget that even in duty to retreat states, it must be perfectly safe to retreat.
Turning your back on an assailant is usually not safe.

California is governed by case law as there is no self defense statute.
Case law in California is actually favorable to stand your ground and castle doctrine self defense.

As for proportionality, you can only respond to a non deadly force attack with non deadly force.
So if they punch you, you can pepper spray them.
Not shoot them dead.

Once the attacker threatens deadly force, there is no proportionality.
It makes no difference if you stab, shoot, run over or crush a deadly force attacker.

This new sure will overturn a century of case law regarding self defense in California.
And is very favorable to criminals.

[Vernon Depner]

Fuck that. If someone is attacking you, it should be entirely up to you how much force to use in self defense.

[Flagger]

"So if they punch you, you can pepper spray them. Not shoot them dead."
If an individual or group attacks someone with their fists and the victim reasonably concludes that, when knocked out, the attacker is going to continue and kill or create great bodily harm (eg, rape), one may be acquitted for shooting in self-defense while being punched. (No guarantee)

[Vernon Depner]

A punch from a fist can certainly be deadly, especially if there is a difference in size and strength between the attacker and the victim.

[Flagger]

In recent self-defense and concealed carry training, I was taught that, unless your state had passed stand-your-ground laws, people outside their homes always had a duty to retreat.
Also, except for "us[ing] too much force," the training included the points covered in the law, that is, that people can't use lethal force to protect property and that starting the conflict limits self-defense claims arising when it escalates.

[Winston in Wonderland]

I live in Idaho. I'm pretty sure that even in this reddest of states, one has a duty to use all other means of self defense prior to using lethal force.

I'm not sure either how the California bill differs from this, so I don't understand why it's either necessary or perceived as a problem.