Another reason why you should know the laws before you use your gun....

[GeauxLSU]

Well, if you intentionally act according to reaction #2, you're committing murder. Or some lesser degree of criminal homicide. That's our law, and the rules made by our ancestors and kept in place by today's generation of lawmakers and judges. If you don't like it, lobby for "shoot fleeing felons" laws. Or move somewhere else.
Or... or stay here in the USA, but understand that if you choose to act on your ideas of right and wrong (vigilante justice) instead of acting according to the law, then you can be the vigilante hero in prison. You can get letters from pen-pals telling you how much they admire you taking out the trash and making the community a safer place. Your mug shot might be a pro-gun meme on the internet, as you sit in prison and aren't allowed access to the internet.


If your anger and shock at seeing your home and family abused this way causes an IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE that, although you knew it was wrong, overrode your will and good judgment and caused you to shoot that fleeing felon in the back, then you might have a defense to the crime, or at least mitigating circumstances that get it reduced to a probation-only sentence.

I'm apparently not very good at communicating my sentiment. Let me try this. "If I'm afraid for my life or for that of my family, I DON'T CARE what the law states, whether I knew it before hand or not." The law does not 'protect' me or my family. I do. I will make the decision that is in our best interest at the moment. Being in jail is awful I've no doubt. Having a family member murdered would be worse.
It's not about 'vigilante justice' either. I don't go patrolling the streets looking for trouble. But I certainly will attempt to permanently end it if it comes looking for me or mine.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

What about this part of the Georgia Law.......How does one interpret it??

Forcible Felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16, except 16-11-131)

Home invasions that involve tying up the occupants of the home certainly qualify as "forcible felonies."
However, read the very first lines from that same Code section you are quoting-- "A person is justified... using force... when and to the extent he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to...prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

So ask yourself this: Are you "preventing" the felony from happening, or are you trying to capture the offender who has already finished doing that crime and is fleeing?
Also, the general rule (and what is mandated by 16-3-24, quoted above) is that you must use only enough force that is reasonably necessary in response to the threat you are facing ( or other innocent people are facing). Is it "necessary" to shoot somebody in the back to stop them from burglarizing the home and tying up the residents when those things have already happened? No. You can just untie the victims yourself. Shooting the bad guy actually distracts you from releasing the hostages. Engaging the bad guy who is trying to flee can cause him to duck behind cover and thus keep him in close proximity to you for a longer time-- if you let him keep running, he'd be out of range in 30 seconds.

 

[poopdaddy]

but are you then responsible when he return to do more harm? or when he does the same or more to the next victim?

 

[protective measures]

Can someone tell ME what Georgia Law is on this situation ?

Read or preferably join gacarry.org.
At the bottom of their home page is a link to Ga. Firearms Laws.

Look up O.C.G.A. 16-3-21

Also the Ga. Gun Law Booklet is a terrific resource to have as well.

What we are discussing is a finer point of that code section.
The key I use in classes to convey the point is that the use of a firearm must be DEFENSIVE in nature...., not offensive.

The point of the post is to help people understand how the law works relative to self defense.
Specifically that once the threat is no longer present if you pursue the parties involved there is a good chance that you may be charged if you use or threaten to use lethal force.... depending on the circumstances.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

However, 16-3-24 is the general law on defense of PROPERTY, other than a habitation.
If the attack in question is upon "habitation" (car, home, or place of business), then the rules are different.
Not only is there a different code section justifying deadly force in defense of habitations (16-3-23), but the Georgia Supreme Court has interpreted that law to take the "reasonably necessary" language out of the three enumerated deadly force justifications (numbered 1, 2, and 3 in the law itself). When one of those three specified sets of circumstances are present, or reasonably appear to you to be present, you have a legal green light to use a deadly weapon, even if it was not strictly necessary and there were arguably less-violent responses you could have used instead. The "reasonably necessary" language still applies to non-deadly force defending a habitation against a threat that does not meet circumstances #1,2, or 3.

See BENHAM v. STATE (Ga. Supreme Court, 2004)
QUOTE: "...the defense of habitation may have justified the use of deadly force in this case even if that amount of force was not necessarily required to repel Kennemore's attack.”   - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-supreme-court/1174525.html#sthash.jA8sVRVu.dpuf

The holding of the majority of this Court was that Benham's trial lawyer was ineffective for only basing the defense on 16-3-21 (general self-defense or defense of others) rather than arguing that the car was a habitation and invoking 16-2-23

 

[biker_bill]

I understand everyone that wants to shoot the bastard.

But that's not how it works, you can't shoot on a want to, you can shoot on a need to.

 

[protective measures]

I'm apparently not very good at communicating my sentiment. Let me try this. "If I'm afraid for my life or for that of my family, I DON'T CARE what the law states, whether I knew it before hand or not." The law does not 'protect' me or my family. I do. I will make the decision that is in our best interest at the moment. Being in jail is awful I've no doubt. Having a family member murdered would be worse.
It's not about 'vigilante justice' either. I don't go patrolling the streets looking for trouble. But I certainly will attempt to permanently end it if it comes looking for me or mine.

If you are truly 'in fear for your families lives" then you would probably be justified.
It's when you leave them & give chase is when you start getting into the gray areas.

If you chase the bad guys down the hall in your house & "plug'em".... you stand a pretty good chance of reasonably articulating why you did so.
If you chase them across the yard away from the family.... maybe.

Chasing them in your vehicle down the road, into or around town until you corner them or run them off the road & then shooting them or shooting at them?..... ummmm, you'll probably go to jail.

As "GaGunLawBooklet" posted ones response has to be "reasonable".

Stories such as this one are great opportunities to learn from others so as to know how the law works & have plans on what your appropriate responses should be so that you not only can protect yourself & family but also can avoid getting into trouble afterwards.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I understand everyone that wants to shoot the bastard.

But that's not how it works, you can't shoot on a want to, you can shoot on a need to.

In an armed confrontation (remember the perp was armed) you think 'legality' is anywhere in someone's conscious? I'm going to try and kill the SOB as long as he's in range.
It's easy for us, safely at a keyboard, to quote the law and prudent for us to do so. I'm simply stating what is a very believable reality for me. I just don't think I'd be anywhere near as 'rational and delberate' as some claim we need to be or imply they would be. Again... I'll just pray my remaining time on earth was like it has been to date and no such scenario ever gets tested. The 'best' scenario is still an absolutely nightmare.

 

[protective measures]

I understand everyone that wants to shoot the bastard.

But that's not how it works, you can't shoot on a want to, you can shoot on a need to.

Awesome☺

 

[GeauxLSU]

If you are truly 'in fear for your families lives" then you would probably be justified.
It's when you leave them & give chase is when you start getting into the gray areas.

If you chase the bad guys down the hall in your house & "plug'em".... you stand a pretty good chance of reasonably articulating why you did so.
If you chase them across the yard away from the family.... maybe.

Chasing them in your vehicle down the road, into or around town until you corner them or run them off the road & then shooting them or shooting at them?..... ummmm, you'll probably go to jail.

As "GaGunLawBooklet" posted ones response has to be "reasonable".

Stories such as this one are great opportunities to learn from others so as to know how the law works & have plans on what your appropriate responses should be so that you not only can protect yourself & family but also can avoid getting into trouble afterwards.

I understand and agree. I don't see myself getting in a vehicle and chasing an armed assailant but who knows? I've never been there. Let's say I do chase them with 9/11 on the line because my 'intent' is just to make sure they don't get away and I want LEO to catch them so I'm giving location and description. They wreck, get stopped by traffic, whatever, and then at that moment there's countless scenarios that could unfold to the point where I'm again in fear for my life or for that of others. Then what?
We can play 'what if' I guess ad infinitum but I and everyone, regardless of what they say, will do what they feel necessary at the moment. It would be nice if the law would be on the side of 'right' in such situations but I realize that's not going to always be reality.