Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

regarding what costitutes a premeditated shooting.

I am an armed security officer in California. My employer requires us to carry our weapons without a round in the chamber. Should I be presented with a situation of imminent danger/death and make an informed decision to take action to protect such, I will need to chamber a round (taking this action also puts the pistol in single action, by cocking the trigger). Does chambering a round put me in a situation of being criminally/civilly liable for premeditation should I fire the weapon and charges be brought against me. I was informed from a third party, that could not cite a source, that law enforcement officers may be liable for such, should they have a single action firearm, and cock the hammer prior to firing. Are you aware of any case law regarding this? I appreciate your time and consideration.

TIA


Asked on 2/02/06, 11:40 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Michael Stone Law Offices of Michael B. Stone Toll Free 1-855-USE-MIKE

Re: regarding what costitutes a premeditated shooting.

I would be more worried about being dead by not being able to chamber a round in time to shoot the other guy before he shoots you. If you have a valid reason to shoot someone -- for example self-defense, or the defense of a third person -- it's not going to make a difference legally whether or not you cock the hammer, chamber a round, or count to 10 first. But that's just my offhand opinion and I haven't done any legal research. I think the real reason your employer does not permit you to have a round chambered is to possibly reduce the chance of an impulsive shoot, and the resultant risk of legal liability for a bad shoot -- your safety being a secondary consideration.

Read more
Answered on 2/03/06, 12:19 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California