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

[protective measures]

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. 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.

But the more you understand what you can & should do the faster you can process what's reasonable.

I agree that in a life or death situation you will react & do what you have to do (hence the old training adage, "you can't form a plan in the middle of a fight".

However you will have a distinct advantage if you know the laws & have trained yourself on how to respond to various situations including home invasions.

I understand that you are fiercely protective of your family.... most of us are.

The trouble is that so often there are examples of good people who were so enraged that they let that anger cloud their judgment & went out seeking revenge & then jeopardize not just their right to own a firearm but also their freedom or incur huge legal fees over (sometimes) a simple lack of knowledge of the law.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

GeauxLSU: I agree that when the moment comes and you are facing evil violent bad guys, you probably will forget everything you ever learned about about the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated. You won't be thinking of BENHAM or GARNER or any other use-of-force Supreme Court case.
All you will be able to do is make a split second decision based on feelings.
I'm hoping that if you study the law before there's an emergency, you won't even get the "feeling" to react in a clearly illegal way.
(I'm not talking about a legal gray area, but a clear-cut violation of the law. I hope that you won't feel the urge to react that way, BECAUSE of the time you spent in the past learning the law and actually internalizing it. Taking it to heart, so to speak.)

But I'm not really expecting anybody to mentally review O.C.G.A. statutory law or case law in their heads before making a shoot-no-shoot decision.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Example: Suppose in the 1950s a middle-aged Southern man, who came of age in the 1930s, saw a white girl kissing and hugging on a black man in a public park.
He would probably be instantly filled with anger and outrage, and would think something like: "OMG, that [N-word] needs to get a visit from the Klan and have his tallywacker cut off! And who is that slut, defiling her proud racial heritage with that African?"
He would not really be thinking of various Jim Crow laws, the segregation of parks, laws against miscegenation, or the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Instead, he would react without conscious thought based on the conditioning and morals-transferring that those sources imparted to him and people like him in his community, and he picked-up on those morals and internalized them.

Now, imagine a man of today who came of age in the late 1980s through the early 21st century. He grew up in an age of black culture being celebrated by Hollywood, interracial dating and marriage in many movies and TV shows, a biracial president, Tiger Woods seemingly fairly-tale marriage to a Norwegian supermodel, etc. And he learned in school about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, how MLK was a such a hero, about the Supreme Court desegregating the schools and striking down bans on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).
How does THAT GUY react when he sees the black man kissing a white girl? He shrugs and thinks "good for him!" or "Aren't they a cute couple?"

He probably doesn't take the time to think and analyze the law or the development of civil rights legislation in the USA. He just "knows" that it's OK and that it would be wrong to interfere with them based on their different races.

People can learn self-defense laws the same way. Internalize them, to the point that they change your way of thinking.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Example: Suppose in the 1950s a middle-aged Southern man, who came of age in the 1930s, saw a white girl kissing and hugging on a black man in a public park.
He would probably be instantly filled with anger and outrage, and would think something like: "OMG, that [N-word] needs to get a visit from the Klan and have his tallywacker cut off! And who is that slut, defiling her proud racial heritage with that African?"
He would not really be thinking of various Jim Crow laws, the segregation of parks, laws against miscegenation, or the Supreme Court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Instead, he would react without conscious thought based on the conditioning and morals-transferring that those sources imparted to him and people like him in his community, and he picked-up on those morals and internalized them.

Now, imagine a man of today who came of age in the late 1980s through the early 21st century. He grew up in an age of black culture being celebrated by Hollywood, interracial dating and marriage in many movies and TV shows, a biracial president, Tiger Woods seemingly fairly-tale marriage to a Norwegian supermodel, etc. And he learned in school about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, how MLK was a such a hero, about the Supreme Court desegregating the schools and striking down bans on interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).
How does THAT GUY react when he sees the black man kissing a white girl? He shrugs and thinks "good for him!" or "Aren't they a cute couple?"

He probably doesn't take the time to think and analyze the law or the development of civil rights legislation in the USA. He just "knows" that it's OK and that it would be wrong to interfere with them based on their different races.

People can learn self-defense laws the same way. Internalize them, to the point that they change your way of thinking.

I don't even know what to say to that.

 

[GeauxLSU]

GeauxLSU: I agree that when the moment comes and you are facing evil violent bad guys, you probably will forget everything you ever learned about about the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated. You won't be thinking of BENHAM or GARNER or any other use-of-force Supreme Court case.
All you will be able to do is make a split second decision based on feelings.
I'm hoping that if you study the law before there's an emergency, you won't even get the "feeling" to react in a clearly illegal way.
(I'm not talking about a legal gray area, but a clear-cut violation of the law. I hope that you won't feel the urge to react that way, BECAUSE of the time you spent in the past learning the law and actually internalizing it. Taking it to heart, so to speak.)

But I'm not really expecting anybody to mentally review O.C.G.A. statutory law or case law in their heads before making a shoot-no-shoot decision.

There is nothing wrong with being familiar with self defense laws (obviously). I'm just not sure how much that 'knowledge' affects anything in 'the heat of battle'.

 

[protective measures]

There is nothing wrong with being familiar with self defense laws (obviously). I'm just not sure how much that 'knowledge' affects anything in 'the heat of battle'.

I sort of agree except knowledge is power.

Often what gets someone into trouble is not defending
themselves from immediate danger but from actions they took after the imminent threat was gone.

If your life or someone close to you is truly in serious, immediate danger then you must be prepared to act without hesitation.
Which is why training is so critical.

It's all of those gray areas where people get into trouble.

 

[great dane u]

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.

I have been a member of GCO for about 7 years. But have not run across a story like the one that started this thread.

 

[Sagan]

I dunno. I've come to believe that if you can stop and consider the legality of shooting at someone, you probably aren't in a situation that qualifies (legally).

 

[GeauxLSU]

I dunno. I've come to believe that if you can stop and consider the legality of shooting at someone, you probably aren't in a situation that qualifies (legally).

Or you might be dead before you complete the thought.

 

[Sagan]

Are you might be dead before you complete the thought.

Exactly