California laws regarding a knife as a defense weapon?

Question

I'm 26, i don't ever intend to have to use such a thing but it could have helped me in the past, i live in a rough area and i refuse to be a prisoner in my apartment after dark, if i need smokes at 2 am, i'm going to go get them regardless of who is out roaming the streets. Finding the laws and not wading through a textbook of other irrelevant stuff is next to impossible so maybe somebody can help me. In my neighborhood and elsewhere throughout my life i have been robbed before (3 times in one year once) and occasionally beaten by individuals and groups of up to 6 people, i have had a gun pulled on me and have been threatened with knives on 2 occasions as well and i believe in the right to self defense but don't want to go to jail.

I already know what types of knives are allowed and that's not an issue, i went with something that could seriously incapacitate somebody but is not likely to kill them (slashing as opposed to stabbing, a spyderco delica 4). In what situations is it ok to use a knife for self defense? If somebody far bigger then me attacks me or tries to rob me but is armed only with his fists can i use it if i feel i need to? If there are a group of people assaulting me does that make it ok? Is a knife only ok if the person assaulting you has a knife as well? What if he has some sort of blunt weapon? I just need to know what I am and am not allowed to do.

Answer 1

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2...

It's base don firearms, but is applicable to any force.  Read chapter 3.  It details the level of force a citizen should/can respond with.

Here are the highlights:

Self-Defense Against Assault

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent

great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.

Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.

NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties.

Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense

The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used. The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another. However, if such person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the adversary

of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any other person being assaulted.

Answer 2

You can use a knife, a gun, a 2x4, a cement truck or a nuclear bomb to defend yourself under the law as long as your choice of weapon and use of force is reasonable.  

If an attacker comes at you with a rubber ball, you do not have the right to use a Patriot missile to defend yourself.

If an attacker comes at you with an Uzi, fire up the Patriots.

The subject you're asking about is filled with variables and you pointed some of them out yourself.  There's no way to give you a black and white answer to this question because each use of force situation is unique.

Anytime someone bigger than you attacks you (without a weapon), you are likely to be allowed to use more force/bigger weapons to defend yourself than if it was someone smaller than you.  

Anytime a group of people attack you, you are also more likely to be allowed to use more force/bigger weapons to defend yourself than if it was just one person.

No, a knife would not be okay only if the person attacking you was also wielding a knife.  A knife would also be okay if someone was attacking you with a three foot long metal pipe - though that's really a situation for a gun at that point.  In fact, you should not meet anyone who attacks you with a knife with another knife - you should meet them with a gun.  

All that said, let me reiterate what I said above:

Each situation involving self-defense is unique and there are no black and white rules.  You always have the right to defend yourself and I would tell you that you always have the right to defend yourself with an equal or greater use of force, provided your use of force is reasonable as I pointed out earlier.

EDIT:

Eric posted while I was writing my answer.  He certainly found a handy reference and I'm glad to see I'm saying basically the same thing as the material he found :)

Answer 3

Ok using a knife will be considered using deadly force.  It could also be considered Aggravated Assault (felony). You have the right to defend your self to protect yourself from imminent serious bodily harm or death. However you better be prepared to defend yourself in a court of law for the use of a weapon. Also do not go anywhere with a knife that you would not go without one. I understand not being a prisoner  your own Apt. but use common sense if you would not walk at night in the park without a knife why would you walk at the park with one.