Restrictions on CCW carry

[Dvrjon]

Well, I did not say directly. I was talking about the things you are heard saying, and then a situation escalates to a use of force, maybe determined to be a mutual combat, and then your WORDS you used may tip things to a higher charge, or a finding of intent-- depending on outcome. This would be if a DA, or maybe the jury, concludes that you were the one being aggressive, were angry and threatening, before things go wrong.

That’s not what you said. You said:

in California many things may rise to a felony just based on what you may say during an incident ….

saying, "hey you dirty bum stay away from me and my family" and cop a hears that and considers it escalating a conflict

Your statement wasn’t predicated on the situation actually escalating…it was predicated solely on an officer perceiving your statement to be an escalation which warrants a felony charge. My point is simple. Your example of calling someone a bum doesn't raise the issue to a felony. It takes much, much more.

 

[Deleted member 7975]

I believe that in California, the jury instructions on these cases specifically mentions "reasonable force", which as we know, is not always an objective standard due to many nuances which may apply to each incident. Especially with how a specific jury may come back with their decision.

In California unlike Texas, Arizona, Florida and more. There is no specific stand your ground statue, which is my point. In a "free state" stand your ground is expressed in the law. In a non free state like Kali, it may be implied, but it is not express.

I did not state that you were incorrect, other than the claim that the right to stand your grand was not "enumerated in law." This is clearly different than saying there is no statute. Your claim that it may be implied, but it is not express, is simply wrong. If it is stated in a published appellate court opinion is it expressed.

 

[Alphahole]

That’s not what you said. You said:


Your statement wasn’t predicated on the situation actually escalating…it was predicated solely on an officer perceiving your statement to be an escalation which warrants a felony charge. My point is simple. Your example of calling someone a bum doesn't raise the issue to a felony. It takes much, much more.

Calling somebody a bum, or even using profanity, or even racially charged language will not be enough to charge you with a crime, but IF you end up engaging in higher levels of conflict, there is a fight, there are injuries. Then the DA may seek a higher charge was the point I was making, as awkward as I may have initially phrased it.

But what I was stressing, is that for us who have a CCW in this state, we need to avoid disputes and possible conflict, because in my humble opinion. the prevailing view of this state's legal system is to already view legal gun owners as anti social, angry, and so forth. That was my point.

 

[Alphahole]

I did not state that you were incorrect, other than the claim that the right to stand your grand was not "enumerated in law." This is clearly different than saying there is no statute. Your claim that it may be implied, but it is not express, is simply wrong. If it is stated in a published appellate court opinion is it expressed.

The way it works in California, is if you reasonably believe you are in danger, then can use force when standing your ground. But this determination may depend on the DA, a judge, and eventually a jury to determine that, right? However, is a true stand your ground state, one with a stand your ground statute, it usually never even gets to a prosecution and a trial. If you were legally allowed to be anywhere, and you are threatened, then you can use force, and in most of the states you will not even be charged by the DA.

Isn't that really the difference?

 

[NorCalBusa]

The way it works in California, is if you reasonably believe you are in danger, then can use force when standing your ground. But this determination may depend on the MEDIA COVERAGE, DA, a judge, and eventually a jury to determine that, right? However, is a true stand your ground state, one with a stand your ground statute, it usually never even gets to a prosecution and a trial. If you were legally allowed to be anywhere, and you are threatened, then you can use force, and in most of the states you will not even be charged by the DA.

Isn't that really the difference?

FTFY

 

[RickD427]

OK. Please cite any section of Penal Code which confirms your statement above indicating that simply calling someone a dirty bum is “escalating a conflict” and would result in a felony charge.

Thanks.

The concern that Mr. Alphahole raised often is expressed regarding Penal Code section 422. That section would not apply as far as calling someone a "Dirty Bum", but it has been applied to cases where the defendant said something that was taken as a threat.

The legislative intend behind section 422 was very limited, and the plain text of the statute calls for a very high showing to establish a criminal violation, but I have seen cases, probably driven by agenda, where PC 422 charges have been filed where there was little more than angry speech.

 

[Dvrjon]

The concern that Mr. Alphahole raised often is expressed regarding Penal Code section 422. That section would not apply as far as calling someone a "Dirty Bum", but it has been applied to cases where the defendant said something that was taken as a threat.

The legislative intend behind section 422 was very limited, and the plain text of the statute calls for a very high showing to establish a criminal violation, but I have seen cases, probably driven by agenda, where PC 422 charges have been filed where there was little more than angry speech.

Hi, Rick. Always good to chat.

Mr. Alphahole raised the prospect that calling someone a "Dirty Bum", if heard by a LEO, could result in a felony charge being brought against the speaker. He has since broadened that concept substantially to expand to actual conflict and "mutual combat", while professing that CA does not have a "stand your ground" concept legally in place.

Setting aside the stand your ground issue, (and ignoring the fact that calling someone a "Dirty Bum" doesn't seem to rise to the levels of CA PEN 422), since 422 is a wobbler, how many of the CA PEN 422 you saw were charged as a felony?

422. ​

(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

 

[RickD427]

Hi, Rick. Always good to chat.

Mr. Alphahole raised the prospect that calling someone a "Dirty Bum", if heard by a LEO, could result in a felony charge being brought against the speaker. He has since broadened that concept substantially to expand to actual conflict and "mutual combat", while professing that CA does not have a "stand your ground" concept legally in place.

Setting aside the stand your ground issue, (and ignoring the fact that calling someone a "Dirty Bum" doesn't seem to rise to the levels of CA PEN 422), since 422 is a wobbler, how many of the CA PEN 422 you saw were charged as a felony?

IMHO, PC 422 is probably one of the most mis-used Penal Code sections out there, and the misuse is both by LEOs and prosecutors. The legislature carefully crafted the text of the statute to be respectful of speech rights, while criminalizing clearly threatening behavior. The elements of "Immediate execution" and "sustained fear" were intended to preclude most forms of angry speech as being a violation.

As a watch commander, I'd occasionally have a patrol deputy bring in a 422 arrest for review and explain that the suspect said "I'm going to kill you" to the victim as satisfying the elements. I'd ask "what did the victim do" as a result of the threat. If the response was "well, he called to make the report". I'd deny booking on that charge. The reason being is that there was no fear of "immediate execution" and that only an ordinary (as opposed to "sustained") fear was present. OTOH, if the deputy were to explain that the victim fled to the station lobby, refused to return home, paid off his burial plot, and requested last rights from his priest, then I would approve booking on the charge.

But, in actuality, PC 422 has become something of a last resort. In cases where someone really needs to go to jail, and there isn't anything better to charge, then PC 422 goes on the table. Prosecutors sometimes evaluate cases on the same terms and that produces filings.

Most of the 422 arrests that I've seen have been rejected for filing, probably for the reasons stated above. Where the reports clearly addressed the elements, and there were not any complicating factors, I'd see misdemeanor filings. Egregious, repeat, or gang offenders would sometimes get the felony filing.

But the "Real World" issue with a "Wobbler" offense is that it is a felony, and nothing less than a felony, until it actually "Wobbles" (generally the 2nd court day following the arrest). That means you go to jail for a felony, get put in a felony cell, get felony bail. and do not get a misdemeanor cite-out. That may all change after two days, but those are going to be very long days.

 

[Dvrjon]

Egregious, repeat, or gang offenders would sometimes get the felony filing.

But the "Real World" issue with a "Wobbler" offense is that it is a felony, and nothing less than a felony, until it actually "Wobbles" (generally the 2nd court day following the arrest). That means you go to jail for a felony, get put in a felony cell, get felony bail. and do not get a misdemeanor cite-out. That may all change after two days, but those are going to be very long days.

But, "You're ugly" isn't going to write that ticket.

 

[Deleted member 7975]

The way it works in California, is if you reasonably believe you are in danger, then can use force when standing your ground. But this determination may depend on the DA, a judge, and eventually a jury to determine that, right? However, is a true stand your ground state, one with a stand your ground statute, it usually never even gets to a prosecution and a trial. If you were legally allowed to be anywhere, and you are threatened, then you can use force, and in most of the states you will not even be charged by the DA.

Isn't that really the difference?

No. In some states, before you can use force to defend yourself, you must retreat if you can safely do so. In stand your ground states there is no requirement that you retreat, even if you could safely do so. Whether or not you are charged will depend on what evidence is available to disprove the other elements or requirements of self defense.