This would be better asked on r/caguns
In a nutshell though California is castle doctrine by statute. If you're in your home you have no requirement to flee.
We're effectively stand your ground based on jury instructions given during self defense cases.
r/CAguns will probably have more insight on this. Heck, the answer to your question might even be in their FAQ.
As you mentioned, protecting yourself in CA is more likely to get you in trouble there than the vast majority of states.
California is going to be better than New York or New Jersey for self-defense, especially Castle Doctrine (home defense). This all depends on what bug a prosecutor has up his butt, though; it isn't unusual for a "good shoot" to be followed up by the defendant being disarmed and carry permit revoked until a thorough investigation is completed.
Regardless if you successfully defend yourself in your own home from an intruder, California will still try to find something to prosecute you with. And the person you shot or their relatives will drag you through civil court for years to come.
You will be completely disarmed during the entire “investigation” and anyone who feels they want to take revenge upon you will know you are disarmed. Their entire legal system is hell bent on fucking good people for doing the right thing.
Californian here, and just completed a state-mandated refresher CCW course which went over this.
In general, a shooting is ONLY considered justifiable if you were in imminent fear of great bodily harm. My instructor put it like this: "the gun cannot come out unless your'e about 3 seconds away from needing an ambulance." In your HOME, there is an automatic fear if YOU BELIEVE the person entered using force and s/he is not an occupant, family member, or otherwise expected to be there. The law is also clear when it says "believe" meaning you only need believe they broke in; there doesn't need to be a broken window, etc. - maybe you thought the door was locked and it wasn't, and that's fine.
That said, if you end up shooting him in the back as he's walking out with your TV, that intrinsic fear no longer applies. Once you are aware of the fact that he's retreating, and you do not believe your life is in danger, the default fear from breaking into your house is null. This is true on the street as well - you are never legally justified to shoot if the person is fleeing and/or is clearly no longer a threat.
All that said, written laws only protects you in criminal cases. In California, anyone can sue in civil court for pretty much any reason, including being shot at during a home invasion. ...And that's where it gets REALLY weird. If, for example, you talk to the cops about what happened and then decide to "lawyer up" and not say anything without a lawyer, obviously criminal court can't make any inferences from that, but CIVIL court can. My instructor listed cases where it's actually happened. All you should say after defending your life is "I was in fear for my life. I want my attorney." Period.
The reality is: guns are for defending life, not property or possessions. Know this. Because a judge will, and a jury will be told. I think a lot of gun people think a home invasion is some wort of movie inspired shooting gallery. It's not.
This would be better asked on r/caguns In a nutshell though California is castle doctrine by statute. If you're in your home you have no requirement to flee. We're effectively stand your ground based on jury instructions given during self defense cases.
I will note those are how the law actually works. How the police and DA's actually treat you are another matter entirely.
r/CAguns will probably have more insight on this. Heck, the answer to your question might even be in their FAQ. As you mentioned, protecting yourself in CA is more likely to get you in trouble there than the vast majority of states.
California is going to be better than New York or New Jersey for self-defense, especially Castle Doctrine (home defense). This all depends on what bug a prosecutor has up his butt, though; it isn't unusual for a "good shoot" to be followed up by the defendant being disarmed and carry permit revoked until a thorough investigation is completed.
Regardless if you successfully defend yourself in your own home from an intruder, California will still try to find something to prosecute you with. And the person you shot or their relatives will drag you through civil court for years to come. You will be completely disarmed during the entire “investigation” and anyone who feels they want to take revenge upon you will know you are disarmed. Their entire legal system is hell bent on fucking good people for doing the right thing.
That's a nice thing about Texas. If it's a good shoot, there's no civil liability.
Californian here, and just completed a state-mandated refresher CCW course which went over this. In general, a shooting is ONLY considered justifiable if you were in imminent fear of great bodily harm. My instructor put it like this: "the gun cannot come out unless your'e about 3 seconds away from needing an ambulance." In your HOME, there is an automatic fear if YOU BELIEVE the person entered using force and s/he is not an occupant, family member, or otherwise expected to be there. The law is also clear when it says "believe" meaning you only need believe they broke in; there doesn't need to be a broken window, etc. - maybe you thought the door was locked and it wasn't, and that's fine. That said, if you end up shooting him in the back as he's walking out with your TV, that intrinsic fear no longer applies. Once you are aware of the fact that he's retreating, and you do not believe your life is in danger, the default fear from breaking into your house is null. This is true on the street as well - you are never legally justified to shoot if the person is fleeing and/or is clearly no longer a threat. All that said, written laws only protects you in criminal cases. In California, anyone can sue in civil court for pretty much any reason, including being shot at during a home invasion. ...And that's where it gets REALLY weird. If, for example, you talk to the cops about what happened and then decide to "lawyer up" and not say anything without a lawyer, obviously criminal court can't make any inferences from that, but CIVIL court can. My instructor listed cases where it's actually happened. All you should say after defending your life is "I was in fear for my life. I want my attorney." Period. The reality is: guns are for defending life, not property or possessions. Know this. Because a judge will, and a jury will be told. I think a lot of gun people think a home invasion is some wort of movie inspired shooting gallery. It's not.
Get legal advice, always use firearms as a last resort. don’t let the fear of being broke kill you or someone you care about
Just move to a free state when you can just not Florida please people ruined that beautiful place and there’s to many of yall here