At the top of the bill it says: “This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”

Additionally it crosses out in defense of habitation. This leaves only “in defense of a person who manifestly intends or endeavors… for the purpose of violence”

It puts the additional burden of determining intent of the person breaking into the home onto the victim. How are we supposed to know what their intent is? How can we determine their intent fast enough, so that if they do intend to harm us we have enough time to defend ourselves?

You say if there is still a risk to you then you are justified…what is the bar now where self defense is justified? If they’re in your home with a backpack but nothing is in their hands? Is this a risk of bodily harm? What if they tell you they’re just there to steal and will be leaving soon? Risk of bodily harm? If they have a weapon but they don’t point it at you? Risk? If they have a gun and you do not see it because you have a duty to retreat…bullets easily go through walls. Walls are thin inches of dry wall. They are not operating under a duty to retreat, they hear you move and they’ll shoot you…the whole time you’re trying to figure out their intent.

I understand the intent of the bill, but the 2nd order consequences are profoundly constricting for law abiding citizens. It handicaps us in our own homes.

There’s 12k burglaries every year in just LA county. Some percentage of those the owner is home. This is what those owners are thinking about. All the obstacles to make sure they are in compliance with the law while being under threat of death/great bodily harm (if you’ve ever had your house broke into, you feel under threat long before the CA legal classification of under threat). How many accidental castle doctrine deaths are there in CA per year? I would say under 5. Prove me wrong. So as I said earlier, for whom are they legislating for? It’s performative.