查了下加州好像如果对方闯入就可以开枪。

The California appellate courts have interpreted this section as creating a "rebuttable presumption" that anyone who employs deadly force against an intruder within his residence has done so in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury. So what does this "rebuttable presumption" mean if I shoot an intruder in my home? It means that if you are charged and there is evidence presented at your trial that you shot a non-household member who you knew or reasonably believed had made an unlawful forcible entry into your residence, it is presumed that you had a reasonable fear that you, a family member or other member of your household was about to be killed or suffer great bodily injury and thus your use of deadly force was lawful, however, the DA will be allowed to present evidence to the contrary and argue to the jury that they can and should disregard the presumption that you acted lawfully when you shot the intruder. To put it another way, the California Home Protection Bill of Rights establishes a presumption that the very act of forcible entry entails a threat to the life and limb of the homeowner and gives the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the resident, but again, subject to the jury agreeing with a DA's argument that there was evidence to the contrary and they should disregard the presumption and find the resident guilty.

所有跟帖： 

• 仔细学习了，好像是这么回事。不过咱是小老百姓，能把对方吓走的话就太好了，一言不发开枪还是不敢的。。。 -ahya- ♀ (0 bytes) () 03/24/2015 postreply 12:59:49

• 问题是你不知道对方有没有枪呀？万一他先下手你不就惨了？ -电热毯- ♂ (0 bytes) () 03/24/2015 postreply 13:03:11