SELF DEFENSE AND USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CALIFORNIA A LEGAL ANALYSIS

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome everyone to Inside the Badge. We delve deep into
understanding criminal law. So let's get started. Have you ever
wondered what your fairy friend is really thinking? Well, let

(00:23):
me introduce to you my new book, Dog Psychology by
doctor Carlos Vasquez. As a psychology professor with over ten
years experience, I've unlocked the secrets of the canine psyche.
I will teach you how to understand your dog's body language,
to code their barks and wines, solved behavioral puzzles, and
strengthen your bond like never before. With Dog Psychology, you'll

(00:46):
see the world through your dog's eyes. Don't just be
a dog owner, become a dog whisperer. So go get
Dog Psychology by doctor Carlos Vasquez, available now on kindle
or paperback on Amazon. We're gonna be looking at self

(01:07):
defense and use of deadly force in California, and we'll
look at some of the cases that are national or
Supreme Court decisions as well as California's state court rulings
and then recent legislative reforms. So California's state self defense
laws are primarily codified in Penal Code Section one ninety
seven and one ninety eight point five. These statutes outline
the circumstances under which the use of force, including deadly forces,

(01:30):
legally justified. Key elements of self defense in California include
reasonable belief of emminent danger, proportional use of force, and
no duty to retreat. California follows the standard ground principle
and People versus Humphrey, the California Supreme Court held of
the jury must consider the defendant situation and knowledge, which
may include past experiences, in determining reasonableness. The decision was

(01:54):
particularly significant in cases involving battered women syndrome ww Alifornia
permits the use of deadly force and self defense only
when the defendant reasonably believed that they were in eminent
danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm. And
People versus Randall, the California Court of Appeal clarified that
there's no duty to retreat before using force and self

(02:16):
defense even outside the home. This aligns with California Standard
ground principles, although the state does not have an explicit
stand your ground statute. Also, the Castle's doctrine in California
creates a presumption of reasonable fear when a resident uses
deadly force against an intruder in their home. The presumption, though,
is rebuttable, and the use of force must be under

(02:37):
reasonable must be still reasonable under the circumstances. So let's
look at some of the key support Supreme Court decisions
for this. The Supreme Court held it the use of
deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed,
non dangerous suspect violates the Fourth Amendment. In Tennessee versus
Garner nineteen eighty five, the decision significantly restricted the circumstances

(02:59):
under which law enforce officers could use deadly force against
fleeing suspects. Graham versus Connor in nineteen eighty nine. The
case established the objectible objective reasonableness standard for evaluating police
use of force under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held
of the reasonableness of a particular use of force must
be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on

(03:20):
the scene, rather than with twenty twenty hindsight. Scott versus Harris,
the Court of Directors addressed the use of deadly force
by police during a high speed car chase. The decision
emphasized the need to balance the nature and quality of
the intrusion of the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the
importance of the governmental interests. In California's specific court decisions.

(03:42):
We talked already about People versus Humphrey that held the
evidence of batter women's syndromes relevant to the reasonableness of
a defendants belief in the need of self defense. This
decision expanded the factors that juries could consider an evaluating
self defense claims. Eight versus County of San Diego, the
Supreme Court held that tactical conduct and decisions preceding the

(04:05):
use of deadly force are relevant considerations under California law
and determining whether the use of deadly force gives rise
to negligence liability. Foster versus City of Indio, the case
of California Court of Appeal applied the totality of the
circumstances tests and evaluating police use of force, considering factors
such as the severity of crime, whether the suspect pose

(04:28):
an immedia threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest.
The legal standards governing self defense and use of force
differs significantly between private citizens and law enforcement officers. Citizens
are generally held to a stricter standard of necessity and proportionality,
while officers benefit from greater legal protection and a more

(04:49):
deferential standard of review. If you looked at included, I
guess at the end of us all. After thorough analysis
of California's self defense laws, it is evident that while
the state has made significant strides in balancing individual rights
of public safety that remain critical areas of reform. Possibly

(05:09):
the current legal framework, particularly in light of recent changes
such as AB three ninety two, represents a step possibly
in the right direction, say some, but fall short at
providing the clarity and consistency necessary the self defense laws
in California. Some argue a progressive in many aspects, but
suffer key shortcomings of demanding media attention that fel from
reasonable to necessary in police use of force cases under

(05:32):
AB three ninety two is but someone will argue. So
there you go a little bit of insight into the
use of force in how it applies in California. So
we looked at some Supreme Court cases will probably delve
into people versus Humphrey in our next podcast,