BILL ANALYSIS Ó
HR 23
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 27, 2013
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
HR 23 (Bradford) - As Amended: August 8, 2013
SUMMARY : Resolves that the Assembly encourage the Select
Committee on the Status of Boys and Men of Color to continue to
advance its legislative agenda to improve the lives of young
people of color, including its work to reduce the use of
policies and practices that push boys out of school and to
instead promote common sense discipline that keeps pupils in
school and on track. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes the following findings in support of the resolution:
a) The criminalization of African American, Latino, and
Asian and Pacific Islander youth continues to pervade our
social, educational, political, and cultural systems.
b) Boys and men of color throughout California continue to
face unnecessary hurdles in education, in opportunities to
work, in public safety, and in other areas based on
preconceived notions and fear.
c) The verdict in the case against George Zimmerman for the
killing of Trayvon Martin was deeply troubling to many
young people and to Californians in general. Many have
interpreted the ruling to signify that there are two
separate but unequal justice systems for whites and
nonwhites, and that fearing a black and brown youth can
justify the taking of a life, and that simply walking down
the street or wearing certain clothes is viewed as
criminal.
d) California's boys and men of color face unique barriers
on their road to adulthood. They are more likely to grow up
in neighborhoods marked by poverty, violence, underfunded
schools, and low-wage jobs.
e) In California, 35 percent of African American youth and
HR 23
Page 2
26 percent of Latino youth do not graduate from high
school.
f) Young African American men experience homicide rates at
least 16 times greater than that of young white men.
g) Racial profiling continues to exist throughout this
state, and our young people deserve better.
h) It is essential that all Californians examine their
prejudices and biases so that we can work toward a world in
which all people are judged by the content of their
character and their actions, and not by the color of their
skin.
i) All lives are valuable, and none are disposable.
j) All people, regardless of the color of their skin,
should be able to enjoy the basic liberty that many of us
take for granted, including the freedom to walk down the
street.
aa) Laws like Florida's Stand Your Ground law risk
escalating minor confrontations with tragic results. We
need to find ways to defuse conflicts, and not escalate
them.
bb) The best way to honor the memory of Trayvon Martin is to
channel our pain and frustration into our work to create an
inclusive California in which our communities need not fear
our sons and brothers walking down the street.
cc) Trayvon Martin's death is not in vain. The tragedy is a
catalyst to create a California that embraces and invests
in the health and well-being of all young people. They are
a source of strength, creativity, and economic dynamism,
and not a group that should be feared or condemned.
California's diversity is its greatest strength and a
competitive advantage.
dd) The Legislature is taking action through legislation,
budget decisions, and through the Legislative oversight
function to ensure that the needs of California's boys and
men of color are a priority in state investments and
programs.
HR 23
Page 3
ee) The Assembly has established the Select Committee on the
Status of Boys and Men of Color to help put our young
people on a road to a healthy and successful adulthood
because successful young people are not born, they are
nurtured.
2)Makes the following resolutions:
a) That the Assembly encourages the Select Committee on the
Status of Boys and Men of Color to continue to advance its
legislative agenda to improve the lives of young people of
color, including its work to reduce the use of policies and
practices that push boys out of school and to instead
promote common sense discipline that keeps pupils in school
and on track.
b) That the Assembly encourages the Select Committee on the
Status of Boys and Men of Color to deepen its commitment to
prepare young men of color for success in the workplace and
in the marketplace and to increase the numbers of young men
of color who are prepared for jobs and professional careers
in the health, education, and green infrastructure sectors.
c) That the Assembly further encourages the Select
Committee on the Status of Boys and Men of Color to support
growing state and national efforts to shine a spotlight on
the needs and aspirations of young men of color across the
United States, including the newly formed Congressional
Caucus on Black Men and Boys. be it
d) That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of
this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that lawful resistance to the commission of a public
offense may be made by the party about to be injured or by
other parties. (Penal Code Section 692.)
2)Provides that resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may
be made by the party about to be injured: (Penal Code Section
HR 23
Page 4
963.)
a) To prevent an offense against his person, or his family,
or some member thereof.
b) To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure
property in his lawful possession.
3)Provides that any other person, in aid or defense of the
person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to
prevent the offense. (Penal Code Section 694.)
4)Provides that homicide is justifiable when committed by any
person in any of the following cases: (Penal Code Section
197.)
a) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to
commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any
person.
b) When committed in defense of habitation, property, or
person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by
violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one
who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous
or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another
for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.
c) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or
of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or
servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to
apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great
bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being
accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose
behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or
engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith
have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the
homicide was committed.
d) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways
and means, to apprehend any person for any felony
committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in
lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
5)Provides that any person using force intended or likely to
cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence
HR 23
Page 5
shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent
peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a
member of the household when that force is used against
another person, not a member of the family or household, who
unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly
entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry
occurred. As used in this section, great bodily injury means
a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal Code
Section 198.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : "Typically, if a student slams their book
on their desk out of frustration, it is seen as an outburst.
However if that student is black, Latino or an API male
student, it is seen as a threat. While we have a long way to
go before we adequately address the issues of race, we can
definitely start tearing away and the institutional barriers
we have set for our young boys and men of color. The Select
Committee is a vehicle to change the perception of this sub
group from that of a marginalize threat, into that of a
coveted resource."
2)Self-Defense Generally : In general the concept of
self-defense holds that conduct that would otherwise be
illegal is legal and justified if committed to prevent harm
and the conduct is reasonable under the circumstances. The
rules of self-defense have been predominantly defined through
case law. Seminally, California case law has stated that one
is justified in the use of necessary means of protecting
himself or his property against unlawful force and violence,
when he has reasonable cause to believe such force is about to
be exercised. People v. Chambers (1937) 22 Cal App 2d 687.
Further, to justify a homicide, the defendant must not only
have believed himself to be in peril, but as a reasonable
person, he must have had sufficient grounds for such belief,
and it does not matter whether such peril was real or
apparent. People v. Dawson (1948, Cal App) 88 Cal App 2d 85.
In general, the force used by a person claiming self-defense
must be reasonable. The test as to whether the force is
reasonable is both objective and subjective. The person must
actually feel that the force was necessary to defend
HR 23
Page 6
themselves. Additionally, a reasonable person in the same
circumstances must also feel that the force used was necessary
to constitute self-defense.
3)Where the Slayer Provokes the Conflict and Claims
Self-Defense : California has recognized the basic legal
concept that the person who provokes the conflict which later
results in a death cannot then later claim self-defense to
justify the homicide. Whenever an assault is brought upon a
person by his own procurement, or under an appearance of
hostility which he himself creates, with a view of having his
adversary act upon it, and he so acts and is killed, the plea
of self-defense is unavailing. People v. Iams (1880) 57 Cal
115; People v. Garnier (1950) 95 Cal App 2d 489. However,
case law has carved out exceptions that courts have found
self-defense under these circumstances reasonable. For
instance, if the initial interaction was minor and on the
level of misdemeanor assault or trespass and it is met with
deadly force, self-defense may be claimed. People v.
Flannelly (1900) 128 Cal 83. Courts have maintained however
that an initial assailant who initiates a confrontation
knowing that they are armed may not claim self-defense. A
defendant cannot maintain that in taking his assailant's life
he acted in self-defense if defendant in any way challenged
the fight and went to it armed; a man has not the right to
provoke a quarrel and take advantage of it, and then justify
the homicide; self-defense may be resorted to in order to
repel force, but not to inflict vengeance. People v. Bates
(1967) 256 Cal App 2d 935. An assailant who brings on attack
may not claim exemption from consequences of killing his
adversary on ground of self-defense. People v. McAuliffe
(1957) 154 Cal App 2d 332.
4)Right to Stand Ground : California does recognize through case
law the right of a person to stand one's ground to defend
themselves against an assault or more violent attack.
However, as in most jurisdictions which recognize English
Common Law, this right is limited by the same reasonableness
standard set forth in the general self-defense rule. The
defendant has no duty peaceably to avoid an unprovoked and
unwarranted threatened assault on his person before repelling
it by force. People v. Scott (1886) 69 Cal 69. Where the
attack is sudden and the danger imminent, one may stand his
ground and slay his aggressor, even if it be proved that he
might more easily have gained safety by flight. People v.
HR 23
Page 7
Hecker (1895) 109 Cal 451. A person assailed in his own house
or in his own premises has the right to stand his ground and
may kill the assailant if reasonably necessary. People v.
Lewis (1897) 117 Cal 186.
However, a person who claims self-defense and the right to
stand one's ground when they are the initial aggressor may
have additional hurdles in asserting self-defense. Where a
defendant seeks or induces the quarrel which leads to the
necessity for killing his adversary, the right to stand his
ground is not immediately available to him, but he must first
decline to carry on the affray and must honestly endeavor to
escape from it; only when he has done so will the law justify
him in thereafter standing his ground and killing his
antagonist. People v. Newcomer (1897) 118 Cal 263.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744