Talk:California Penal Code

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Armed Robbery[edit]

The heading on this page refers to section 211 as "armed robbery." Shouldn't it just be "robbery?"

You're probably right. The section says "force and fear," which implies that it can be robbery by mere threats, such as the old trick of using a finger or candy bar. --Coolcaesar 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous code numbers[edit]

I would argue that the only one of these that is actually famous is 187. I don't think most people would be familiar with the rest of the numbers in the list. -Branddobbe 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Editorial on section 666[edit]

Shouldn't this little editorial be placed in an article about the Three Strikes Law? If that. The category of "most controversial section" does not seem appropriate here. Moreover, many of the sections are in some way "controversial." By what measure do you determine that section 666 is the "most controversial"?

Its constitutionality was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and it has been the subject of multiple voter initiatives. You can't get much more controversial than that. In contrast, I haven't seen the Court reviewing the constitutionality of most other parts of the Penal Code lately. --Coolcaesar 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

597[edit]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml

I searched for section 597, but it said no data found.

Benjamin (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google. It returns this page from that site. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Penal Code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714132609/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]