Disclaimer: This page is not a substitute for a concealed firearm permit course. This does not constitute, nor should be implied as, legal advice. Always seek an attorney's advice and consult state and local laws yourself. The following information is presented for informational purposes only.
Anyone may stop a criminal act
692. Lawful resistance to the commission of a public offense may be made:
1. By the party about to be injured;
2. By other parties.
Force must be just enough to stop the crime
693. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured:
1. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or some member thereof.
2. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in his lawful possession.
Anyone may aid someone resisting a crime
694. Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent the offense.
Excusable homicide
195. Homicide is excusable in the following cases:
1. When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.
2. When committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, when no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used, and when the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
Note: Number 2 is “accidental homicide” and is not within the scope of our examination.
When homicide is excusable in self-defense
When homicide is excusable in self-defense
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.
(2) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.
(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed.
(4) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
- You may use lethal force to prevent a murder, a violent crime (violent felony like rape, robbery, or mayhem), or to commit great bodily injury against you or someone else.
- You may use lethal force to protect your home against anyone who is attempting to commit a violent crime inside against you or someone else or that person is breaking in and you reasonably assume they are doing to commit violence to someone inside.
- You are coming to the aid of another person when homicide is justifiable already or, if you started the fight or the fight was mutual, you backed of and tried to get away or stop the fight before it became deadly.
- You were attempting to make a private persons arrest and lawfully used lethal force to stop someone who posed a great risk of death or great bodily injury and, if not stopped, would put the public at risk.
Note Number 3 entails the “castle doctrine.” There is no duty to retreat inside your own home.
Note shooting a fleeing felon is generally reserved for law enforcement and is governed by the case Tennessee v. Garner. You cannot shoot someone for a property crime, even if it is a felony.
Bare fear not allowed
198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.
Presumption of fear during home invasion
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.
Note that you cannot simply claim that you were “afraid for your life.” It must be supported by facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to be fearful of death or serious injury. It is assumed that if someone forcibly enters your home (i.e. kicks down the door) that they are there to cause death or great bodily injury.
CALCRIM No. 3470
“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 bodily injury...Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted 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 defendant did not act in lawful self-defense.”
“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.”
No duty to retreat/“stand your ground”
You do have a duty to retreat if you started the fight or if the fight was mutual (see 197 3.)
California does not have a no duty to retreat/“stand your ground” provision in law, except in the home (see 197 4.). However, a general no duty to retreat doctrine is articulated in case law. In People v. Hughes (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 487, 493, the following jury instruction was upheld:
You do have a duty to retreat if you started the fight or if the fight was mutual (see 197 3.)
California does not have a no duty to retreat/“stand your ground” provision in law, except in the home (see 197 4.). However, a general no duty to retreat doctrine is articulated in case law. In People v. Hughes (1951) 107 Cal.App.2d 487, 493, the following jury instruction was upheld:
A person who has been attacked and who is exercising his right of lawful self-defense is not required to retreat, and he may not only stand his ground and defend himself against the attack but may also pursue his assailant until he has secured himself from danger if that course appears to him, and would appear to a reasonable person in the same situation, to be reasonably and apparently necessary; and this is his right even though he might more easily have gained safety by withdrawing from the scene.
The same went for People v. Hatchett (1942) 56 Cal. App. 2d 20, 132 P. 2d 51:
She had a right to stand her ground and defend herself when attacked and could pursue her adversary until she had secured herself from danger. The requested instruction clearly states the law on the subject.
CALCRIM No. 3470
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 [...] has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.
Shooting animals in self-defense
There is no state exemption expressly for shooting attacking animals; this would generally only be a violation of local discharge of firearm ordinances. It is unlikely that someone who shoots a truly vicious animal that is or is about to attack would be prosecuted. However, many locations do expressly exempt self-defense of life, property, and livestock.
Brandishing/defensive display
California law does not expressly allow defensive display of firearms in lawful self-defense. Many sheriffs and chiefs will revoke a license to carry if a licensee unjustifiably displays a firearm.
There is no state exemption expressly for shooting attacking animals; this would generally only be a violation of local discharge of firearm ordinances. It is unlikely that someone who shoots a truly vicious animal that is or is about to attack would be prosecuted. However, many locations do expressly exempt self-defense of life, property, and livestock.
Brandishing/defensive display
California law does not expressly allow defensive display of firearms in lawful self-defense. Many sheriffs and chiefs will revoke a license to carry if a licensee unjustifiably displays a firearm.
417. (a) (2) Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a firearm in any fight or quarrel is punishable as follows: [omitted]
It is not self-defense to pull out your firearm and yell at someone over trivial matters. Firearms should only be drawn in a life-or-death type situation and only in circumstances where lethal force would be justified.
Warning shots
Warning shots are not advised and may result in one being prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, or local unsafe discharge ordinance violations. In People v. Overturf, the defendant fire a warning shot into the dirt when three young men advanced on him. Mr. Overturf was probably arrested and prosecuted more for firing the shot than if he had not done so.
I shot someone in self-defense. What do I do?
Call 911. It would be wise to tell law enforcement you shot in self-defense and out of fear for your life. Remember, you do not have provide a statement about what happened unless you choose to. If you are arrested or detained, you may request to consult with an attorney or have one present with you during questioning.
Warning shots
Warning shots are not advised and may result in one being prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, or local unsafe discharge ordinance violations. In People v. Overturf, the defendant fire a warning shot into the dirt when three young men advanced on him. Mr. Overturf was probably arrested and prosecuted more for firing the shot than if he had not done so.
I shot someone in self-defense. What do I do?
Call 911. It would be wise to tell law enforcement you shot in self-defense and out of fear for your life. Remember, you do not have provide a statement about what happened unless you choose to. If you are arrested or detained, you may request to consult with an attorney or have one present with you during questioning.