What the Law Says About Self-Defense in California

California law allows individuals to use force to protect themselves or others, but strict legal standards apply when deadly force is involved. A person who fires a weapon in self-defense must prove that their actions were legally justified under the law.

How California’s Self-Defense Laws Work

Several key statutes define when self-defense can legally justify the use of deadly force:

• Penal Code § 197 – Justifiable Homicide: Deadly force is justified if it is necessary to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent felony such as robbery, rape, or burglary.
• Penal Code § 198 – Reasonable Belief Requirement: Fear alone is not enough—the belief that deadly force was necessary must be reasonable under the circumstances. A person must have honestly believed they or someone else were in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured.
• Penal Code § 198.5 – The Castle Doctrine: Homeowners are legally presumed to have acted in self-defense if they use deadly force against an intruder who unlawfully and forcibly enters their home. However, this presumption does not apply if the intruder was invited inside or was not attempting to commit a violent crime.

Does California Have a Stand Your Ground Law?

Unlike some other states, California does not have a Stand Your Ground law. However, courts have ruled that a person who is lawfully present in a location has no duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as they reasonablybelieve it is necessary to prevent death or serious injury.

That said, self-defense is not automatic immunity from prosecution. Law enforcement will still conduct a full investigation, and prosecutors will closely examine whether the force used was reasonable. Even in cases where self-defense seems clear, an aggressive legal defense is often necessary to prevent criminal charges.

Key Factors Prosecutors Consider in a Self-Defense Shooting

A self-defense claim is not automatically accepted by law enforcement or prosecutors. Even if someone genuinely believed they had no choice but to use deadly force, prosecutors will closely examine the circumstances to determine whether the shooting was legally justified.

Their investigation will focus on several critical factors, including whether the shooter reasonably believed they were in imminent danger, whether their use of force was proportional, and whether they had any opportunity to retreat. Any inconsistencies in the evidence can be used to challenge the claim of self-defense.

Each case is different, and even a seemingly justified shooting can lead to criminal charges if the prosecution believes the facts do not support self-defense under the law. Below are the key factors they will consider.

Imminent Threat – Was the danger immediate and real?

For a shooting to be considered self-defense, there must have been an immediate and credible threat of serious harm. The law does not allow someone to use deadly force simply because they feel uneasy or believe a situation could become dangerous. Prosecutors will carefully examine whether the threat was real, imminent, and left no reasonable alternative.

A person claiming self-defense must have reasonably believed that they—or someone else—were about to be:

• Killed,
• Seriously injured, or
• Victimized in a violent crime such as robbery, sexual assault, or home invasion.

Not every confrontation justifies the use of deadly force. A vague or future threat (such as someone saying, “I’ll get you next time”) or a non-threatening movement does not typically meet the legal standard for self-defense.

Prosecutors will closely examine:

• Surveillance footage and witness statements to determine whether the threat was real or exaggerated.
• The attacker’s actions—Were they advancing aggressively, armed, or attempting to carry out a violent crime? Or were they backing away or de-escalating?
• The shooter’s response—Did they react immediately to a clear danger, or did they have time to consider other options before pulling the trigger?

If the evidence shows that the attacker was retreating or had stopped posing a danger, prosecutors may argue that the use of deadly force was no longer justified. The burden will be on the defense to prove that the threat was ongoing and that shooting was the only reasonable way to stop it.

Proportional Use of Force – Was the response reasonable based on the threat?

Even if a person acts in self-defense, the law does not allow them to use more force than necessary to stop the threat. The response must be reasonable and proportional to the level of danger faced. Prosecutors will carefully examine whether the use of deadly force matched the threat or if it was excessive.

One of the biggest factors they consider is whether the attacker was armed:

• If the attacker had a deadly weapon (such as a gun, knife, or blunt object capable of causing serious injury), using a firearm in response is more likely to be seen as reasonable.
• If the attacker was unarmed, prosecutors may argue that shooting them was unnecessary—unless there is strong evidence that they still posed a serious danger.

Prosecutors may also analyze:

• The size and strength difference – If the attacker was significantly larger or stronger, self-defense may still be valid even if they were unarmed.
• The number of attackers – If the shooter was outnumbered, using deadly force may be justified even if none of the attackers had weapons.
• The attacker’s behavior – If they were acting violently, had a history of aggression, or had made threats before, it could support the argument that deadly force was necessary.

While the law does not require a person to fire a warning shot or attempt to retreat, prosecutors may use the absence of these actions to argue that the shooting was avoidable. If there was a reasonable way to stop the threat without deadly force, they may push for criminal charges. A strong self-defense case must show that the force used was not excessive, but instead a necessary response to a real and immediate threat.

Who Started the Fight? – Was the shooter the aggressor?

Self-defense laws do not protect aggressors. If the shooter was the one who initiated the confrontation, prosecutors may argue that they forfeited the right to claim self-defense. The key question is whether the shooter provoked the incident or escalated a non-deadly situation into a deadly one.

Prosecutors will look for evidence that the shooter:

• Instigated a physical altercation that ultimately led to the use of deadly force.
• Made prior threats toward the victim, either in person, over text, or on social media.
• Engaged in aggressive behavior, such as brandishing a weapon or challenging someone to a fight.

However, a person who initially started a fight may still regain the right to self-defense if:

• They clearly attempted to withdraw from the confrontation.
• The other person continued the attack despite the shooter’s efforts to disengage.

For example, if someone throws a punch during an argument and then backs away, but the other person escalates the situation by pulling a weapon, the original aggressor may regain the right to use force to protect themselves. Prosecutors will closely analyze witness statements, surveillance footage, and past interactions between the parties to determine who truly started the fight. If they can prove that the shooter was looking for trouble, they may push for criminal charges, arguing that self-defense does not apply.

Duty to Retreat – Could the shooter have escaped safely?

California does not require a person to retreat before using deadly force. If someone is lawfully present and reasonably believes they must use force to prevent serious harm, they have the right to stand their ground. However, this does not mean prosecutors will automatically accept a self-defense claim.

Even though the law does not impose a duty to retreat, prosecutors may still argue that the shooter had a chance to escape safely instead of using deadly force. They will analyze:

• Whether there was a clear and safe way to avoid the confrontation—Was there an open exit or a way to remove themselves from the situation without using a gun?
• The shooter’s location and distance from the threat—Was the attacker advancing aggressively, or was there time to move away?
• The presence of obstacles or barriers—Was the shooter cornered, or could they have stepped back?

If the prosecution can show that the shooter chose to use deadly force when they had a reasonable alternative, they may argue that the shooting was not necessary and push for criminal charges. A strong legal defense must prove that retreat was not a safe or practical option and that using a firearm was the only way to stop an immediate threat.

Castle Doctrine – Was the shooting inside the home?

California’s Castle Doctrine provides stronger legal protections for individuals who use deadly force inside their own home. The law presumes that if someone forcibly enters a residence, the homeowner has a reasonable fear of imminent danger, making the use of deadly force more likely to be considered justified.

However, this presumption does not apply in every situation. Prosecutors will look at:

• How the intruder entered – If they broke in or forced their way inside, self-defense is easier to establish.
• Whether the intruder was invited inside – If the person had permission to enter and a dispute escalated, the Castle Doctrine may not apply.
• Who was the aggressor – If the homeowner provoked the situation or used excessive force, they may still face charges.

It’s also important to note that the Castle Doctrine does not extend beyond the home. Shootings that occur in driveways, vehicles, or public places are subject to standard self-defense laws, meaning the shooter must prove that deadly force was necessary and reasonable under the circumstances. A strong defense in these cases requires proving that the shooting was a legitimate response to a violent home invasion and not an act of retaliation or unnecessary force.

Contradictory Evidence

Even if a shooter claims self-defense, prosecutors will closely examine all available evidence to determine whether that claim holds up. Any inconsistencies or contradictions can be used to challenge the shooter’s credibility and argue that the use of force was unjustified.

Key evidence that prosecutors rely on includes:

• 911 calls and surveillance footage – Recordings from emergency calls or security cameras may provide a different version of events than what the shooter claims.
• Forensic evidence – Ballistics, gunshot residue, and blood spatter analysis can reveal details about where the shooter was positioned, the distance between the individuals, and whether the victim was actually a threat at the time of the shooting.
• Witness statements – Eyewitnesses may contradict the shooter’s account, especially if their statements suggest the victim was not acting aggressively.

Prosecutors will also consider any past conflicts between the shooter and the victim. If there is evidence of a pre-existing dispute, threats, or hostility, they may argue that the shooting was motivated by revenge or personal animosity rather than self-defense.

Additionally, if the shooter changes their story or gives inconsistent statements to police, this can be used to suggest that their self-defense claim is unreliable or fabricated. A strong legal defense must address any contradictions in the evidence and establish a clear, consistent, and credible account of why the shooting was necessary to prevent harm.

What If Prosecutors Believe the Shooting Was Not Justified?

If prosecutors decide that a shooting does not meet the legal requirements for self-defense, the shooter may face serious felony charges, including:

• Murder (Penal Code 187) – If the shooting was intentional and not legally excused, prosecutors may pursue murder charges, which carry a potential sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
• Voluntary Manslaughter (Penal Code 192(a)) – If the shooting occurred in the heat of passion or under sudden provocation, but without lawful justification, charges may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, which carries a lower sentence but still results in a felony conviction.
• Involuntary Manslaughter (Penal Code 192(b)) – If the shooting was unintentional but caused by reckless or criminally negligent behavior, involuntary manslaughter charges may apply.
• Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(2)) – If a firearm was used but did not result in death, prosecutors may charge the shooter with assault with a deadly weapon, which carries serious penalties, including prison time.

Building a Strong Self-Defense Case

If you or a loved one is under investigation for a self-defense shooting, you cannot assume that police or prosecutors will see the situation your way. Even if you were protecting yourself, you could still be arrested and charged with a serious felony. Law enforcement is quick to scrutinize any use of a firearm, and without a strong legal defense, you could be facing years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit.

This is where having an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney makes all the difference. A skilled lawyer will take immediate action to gather evidence, protect your rights, and fight to prevent charges from being filed. If charges have already been brought against you, your attorney will work to have them reduced or dismissed before the case ever reaches trial.

At The Law Offices of Arash Hashemi, we understand how Los Angeles prosecutors approach self-defense cases. Attorney Hashemi has successfully defended clients facing serious charges in criminal courts throughout Los Angeles County, and we know the strategies needed to prove that your actions were legally justified. Without an aggressive defense, you could be facing charges such as murder, manslaughter, or assault with a deadly weapon—all of which carry severe penalties. The sooner you contact an attorney, the stronger your case will be.

A strong defense starts with:

• Gathering critical evidence to prove self-defense – Security footage, 911 recordings, medical reports, and eyewitness testimony can all support your claim. We act fast to preserve evidence before it disappears.
• Challenging the prosecution’s version of events – The police report may be biased or incomplete. We expose inconsistencies, unreliable witnesses, and errors in the investigation to strengthen your defense.
• Using expert witnesses to support your case – Forensic specialists, self-defense experts, and medical professionals can provide testimony explaining why your use of force was reasonable and necessary.

Case Result: Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles (Case Number: SA104)*
Charge: Attempted Murder (PC 664-187(A))

Our client was charged with attempted murder after an incident where they claimed self-defense. The prosecution questioned whether the force used was proportional to the threat and initially reduced the charge to attempted voluntary manslaughter (PC 664-192(A)), along with a gun enhancement that could have led to a lengthy prison sentence.

Attorney Hashemi aggressively fought back by filing a PC 995 motion to challenge the charges. After extensive oral arguments, the court determined that our client acted in self-defense and dismissed the case in full.

✔ Result: ALL CHARGES DROPPED.
✔ No jail time.
✔ Client fully cleared of attempted murder charges.

Every self-defense case is different, and the outcome often depends on how soon you have the right legal representation. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges after a self-defense shooting, a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney can make all the difference. The sooner you have an attorney fighting for you, the better your chances of protecting your future and clearing your name.

Legal Defenses in a Self-Defense Shooting Case

Proving the threat was real and immediate – Self-defense is only justified if you reasonably believed you or someone else were in imminent danger. The prosecution may argue that you could have waited or that the threat wasn’t serious. We counter this by presenting witness statements, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence to prove that you had a legitimate fear of death or serious injury.

Demonstrating necessity and proportionality – Even if you were in danger, prosecutors may claim that your response was excessive. If the person you shot was unarmed, smaller than you, or already retreating, they may argue that you didn’t need to use a firearm. We push back by proving that deadly force was the only way to stop the threat—especially in cases involving weapons, multiple attackers, or violent threats.

Challenging the prosecution’s claims – Many self-defense cases rely on unreliable witnesses or incomplete evidence. If the police ignored key facts, failed to document injuries, or misrepresented what happened, we expose these weaknessesto show that the state cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fighting back against “you should have retreated” arguments – While California law does not require you to retreat, prosecutors may argue that you could have walked away instead of shooting. We emphasize California’s legal principle that you have the right to stand your ground when you are lawfully present and facing an imminent threat.

Without a strong defense, prosecutors will push for the harshest penalties possible, even if you acted in self-defense. Attorney Hashemi fights aggressively to ensure that your rights are protected and that the legal system does not wrongfully convict you.

Facing Charges After a Self-Defense Shooting? Get Legal Help Now

If you’ve been arrested or are under investigation after a self-defense shooting, what you do next can determine the outcome of your case. Prosecutors will scrutinize every detail, and without the right defense, you could be facing serious criminal charges. Our Los Angeles criminal defense attorney specializes in self-defense cases and knows how to challenge the prosecution’s claims, expose weaknesses in their case, and fight to protect your freedom.

The sooner you have a skilled defense attorney on your side, the better your chances of avoiding a conviction. Attorney Hashemi will personally review your case, develop a defense strategy, and guide you through every step of the legal process. Call our office today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

Schedule a Free Consultation

📞 Phone: (310) 448-1529
📅 Schedule Your Free 15-Minute Consultation: Conveniently book online through our secure system.
📧 Email: Contact@hashemilaw.com
🏢 Address: 11845 W Olympic Blvd #520, Los Angeles, CA 90064
⏰ Office Hours: Monday to Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM, with flexible scheduling, including weekend appointments.