加州修改自卫法

[肚欲鸣]

没被打死不能自卫。这尺度好难掌握啊。

[Mouseinhouse]

AB1333
提议者，Zbur！華人选民要将它列入黑名单上！永远不要选这个傻叉！

[oldestghost]

又是两位不看细节就开始胡扯的。

[robot2022]

又是两位不看细节就开始胡扯的。

你说说？

[Mouseinhouse]

又是两位不看细节就开始胡扯的。

你倒说说，有什么必要，去除reasonable believe的字眼？即使如你解释的，早已要求实证，为什么要删除？

[oldestghost]

我早就说过了。。。前几天。

首先你们要看过加州code198，再看下crime3470，了解加州现行实际再来讨论。


我不喜欢ab1333

贴主这句话属于扯淡～

没被打死不能自卫。这尺度好难掌握啊

[mmking]

这种气血容易上涌，然后脑中一团糊的，都是既没有常识也没有知识的（潜在）川粉

又是两位不看细节就开始胡扯的。

[Mouseinhouse]

我同意楼主的说法是不正确。回归AB 1333。
California Code of Civil Procedure (CIV) § 1980 is a section that defines terms related to landlords, tenants, and personal property. It is part of a chapter that deals with the disposition of personal property left on premises when a tenancy ends.
Definitions
Landlord: A person who operates, keeps, or leases premises for hire
Owner: A person who has an interest in personal property, but is not the landlord
Premises: Includes any common areas associated with the property
Tenant: A person who pays to lease or sublease premises for hire
Other sections in this chapter
Section 1980.5: Defines when the provisions of this chapter do not apply to commercial real property
Section 1981: Provides an optional procedure
Section 1982: Deals with lost property
Section 1983: Deals with notice
Section 1984: Deals with the form of notice to a former tenant
Section 1985: Deals with the form of notice to others than a former tenant
Before relying on this code for legal purposes, you should verify the status of the code with the state legislature or via Westlaw.

这code 1980似乎只是定义什么是个人财产等等。再看一下3470

D. SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF ANOTHER3470.Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide)Self-defense is a defense to <insert list of pertinent crimescharged>. The defendant is not guilty of (that/those crimes) if (he/she)used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense ofanother). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense ofanother) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/[or] <insert name of third party>) was in imminentdanger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger ofbeing touched unlawfully];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use offorce was necessary to defend against that danger;AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessaryto defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likelythe harm is believed to be. The defendant must have believed there was(imminent danger of bodily injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else)/[or] an imminent danger that (he/she/ [or] someone else) would betouched unlawfully). Defendant’s belief must have been reasonable and(he/she) must have acted because of that belief. The defendant is onlyentitled to use that amount of force that a reasonable person wouldbelieve is necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used moreforce than was reasonable, the defendant did not act in lawful(self-defense/ [or] defense of another).When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, considerall the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to thedefendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situationwith similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefswere reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.[The slightest touching can be unlawful if it is done in a rude or angryway. Making contact with another person, including through his or herclothing, is enough. The touching does not have to cause pain or injuryof any kind.]

这儿前两个都提及reasonable believed 对方危及自己或者别人的生命。
你意思是AB1333不会over ride这个?

[Mouseinhouse]

还是第三点后边那个是一样的约束？不能use future harm来defense?
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likelythe harm is believed to be.

[oldestghost]

Code 198, crime 3470已经确认必须要有确凿的致命危害证据才能开枪。

不能用想象。

Ab1333一个是去掉了因为制止重罪，保护财产开枪的权利。

另一个更关键，但上面两位还有之前几位不懂。。。

去掉了不撤退条款，这个对非自己家环境的自卫影响很大。但对家里影响不大。

目前这个网站说ab1333的id多数在不懂胡扯，夸大其词。

最后这个刚过第一次hearing ，大概率不会过，或者原样过。

[datoumao]

見鬼的新自衛法，我會毫不猶豫開槍先打死再說， 左X的世界受害者死了白死，自己的正義只能靠自己維護。

[wh]

这种气血容易上涌，然后脑中一团糊的，都是既没有常识也没有知识的（潜在）川粉

别乱扣川粉帽子啊。肚欲鸣向来是反川斗士……

[wh]

見鬼的新自衛法，我會毫不猶豫開槍先打死再說， 左X的世界受害者死了白死，自己的正義只能靠自己維護。

你咋打繁体了？怎样算是致命危险是挺难确认，有危险时人会紧张，判断和平时不一样。支持任何情况先自卫，不过骂就不用了

[wh]

还是第三点后边那个是一样的约束？不能use future harm来defense?
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likelythe harm is believed to be.

前几年网上热传一个华人枪击门外几个好像是想入室抢劫的歹徒的视频，屋主朝逃窜的歹徒背后开枪，后来打官司是判无罪的是吧？按照这个条款会算违法？

[mmking]

请注意细节，（潜在）

川宝的手段就是用恐惧和谎言直击人性弱点，即便像我，在川宝一进宫刚开始的时候也是支持他的

对待这种狡猾的骗子和情绪控制大师，只有注重事实和严格逻辑才不容易被感染，否则就容易失去免疫力，就是潜在川粉。

传染病一样的

别乱扣川粉帽子啊。肚欲鸣向来是反川斗士……

[sunnycoast]

你咋打繁体了？怎样算是致命危险是挺难确认，有危险时人会紧张，判断和平时不一样。支持任何情况先自卫，不过骂就不用了

他是台湾同胞你不知道？

[Mouseinhouse]

Code 198, crime 3470已经确认必须要有确凿的致命危害证据才能开枪。

不能用想象。

Ab1333一个是去掉了因为制止重罪，保护财产开枪的权利。

另一个更关键，但上面两位还有之前几位不懂。。。

去掉了不撤退条款，这个对非自己家环境的自卫影响很大。但对家里影响不大。

目前这个网站说ab1333的id多数在不懂胡扯，夸大其词。

最后这个刚过第一次hearing ，大概率不会过，或者原样过。

在家里，我不纯粹的保护财产啊。我孩子家人都在身边。贼人进来我还不许拿枪？还要我retreat ? 他两手空空我就不能confront him，他一伙人空手把我绑了，然后再拿枪出来怎么办？我的孩子们岂不是都肉在跕板上？
我是赞成头猫的做法，先保护好自己家人，把对方干掉了再说，钱可以慢慢赚，官司可以慢慢打。

[oldestghost]

在家里，我不纯粹的保护财产啊。我孩子家人都在身边。贼人进来我还不许拿枪？还要我retreat ? 他两手空空我就不能confront him，他一伙人空手把我绑了，然后再拿枪出来怎么办？我的孩子们岂不是都肉在跕板上？
我是赞成头猫的做法，先保护好自己家人，把对方干掉了再说，钱可以慢慢赚，官司可以慢慢打。

所以你没有看懂加州的法律，即使有ab1333。

[wh]

他是台湾同胞你不知道？

他不是。不要把反对中共的人都叫做台湾人。

[Zephyrca]

Code 198, crime 3470已经确认必须要有确凿的致命危害证据才能开枪。

不能用想象。

Ab1333一个是去掉了因为制止重罪，保护财产开枪的权利。

另一个更关键，但上面两位还有之前几位不懂。。。

去掉了不撤退条款，这个对非自己家环境的自卫影响很大。但对家里影响不大。

目前这个网站说ab1333的id多数在不懂胡扯，夸大其词。

最后这个刚过第一次hearing ，大概率不会过，或者原样过。

你终于承认了ab1333去掉了保护财产开枪的权利。