It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The 326-page arrest affidavit, which reads like a macabre and fantastical television drama, identifies Carson, who ran unsuccessfully for Modesto district attorney last year, as the vengeful ringleader in an elaborate scheme to stop scrap collectors from sneaking onto property he owned in Turlock, taking metal and selling it to junkyards.
What's sad is people are wringing their hands over the death and subsequent game of 'hide-the-body' of some meth-addled copper thief.
The affidavit alleges that Carson was known to confront and threaten people he believed stole from his property. He allegedly investigated cases of thefts on his own without contacting police, the document says, and had a violent temper, at one point screaming at, charging and shoving a Stanislaus County Superior Court employee.
1) Neither California’s constitution nor its statutes contains a stand-your-ground law. They have what’s known as a “castle doctrine” (California Penal Code Section 198.5), granting a justification for deadly force inside one’s residence. If someone forces his or her way into your home, and you have a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” then you would be justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.
“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 of (death/great bodily injury/) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”
So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.
3) California’s stand-your-ground defense as part of the justifiable homicide rules has several conditions. Aggressors are not eligible for this — you must be defending, not striking first. You, as a reasonable person, would have to believe the danger is imminent and not a threat at some time in the future. Also, you had to have believed that deadly force was necessary, and you had to have used just enough force to defend yourself. However, a defendant does not have to be correct about having actually been in danger. A jury can acquit if they think the defendant reasonably believed that mortal danger was truly there.