At what point can I use deadly force?

[Survivor Johnny]

If the intruder lives, he can sue u so "aim small miss small" and "mag dump" come to mind

 

[protective measures]

Does the castle doctrine of Georgia not address entering a home uninvited? In this day and age, you'd be unwise to assume anything other than someone doing you grave harm by coming into your home uninvited.
I thought this law protected you criminally and civilly in the very unfortunate situation where you were forced to use lethal action.

Read O.C.G.A. code 16-3-23 & 16-3-23.1 & decide how you interpret it.
And 16-3-24 as well.

 

[protective measures]

Nobody wants that. But people should accept that one way or another, there is probably going to be a jury involved. Even if the local prosecutor doesn't present the case to a grand jury and you never face a criminal jury, you are practically guaranteed to be the defendant in a civil suit. Whether or not that ever makes it in front of a civil jury will depend on either your willingness to settle or a judge's willingness to toss it.

I think the heart of your point was know and understand the law and make your decisions about use of force based on that knowledge. I agree 100%.

Although I agree w/ you on just about everything, not sure about the above statement.
What's your take on O.C.G.A. 51-11-9?

Does it not clearly state that you are immune from civil prosecution if you use or threaten to use force justifiably?

 

[StateLine]

Although I agree w/ you on just about everything, not sure about the above statement.
What's your take on O.C.G.A. 51-11-9?

Does it not clearly state that you are immune from civil prosecution if you use or threaten to use force justifiably?

Yep, that's what it says. I guess I was speaking in generalities when I should be speaking in specifics. Good to know that the GA legislature is capable of some common sense measures to protect those who protect themselves. On the other hand, reading the wording of the statute, it says that a person is immune from civil liability if the force was justified. I wonder how that measure would play out in a jurisdiction with an over zealous or politically motivated prosecutor. Would being charged with a crime in the aftermath of a defensive shooting automatically negate your civil immunity? Would your civil immunity be reinstated in the event of your acquittal? I guess that's what the appellate courts are for. Effin' lawyers.

 

[buck111]

Whatever force you use, you won't be tried on the internet. It will be in a courtroom, with real lawyers and very real consequences. Use common sense.

 

[Gunfighter]

I don't know when I can, but I know when I will...

 

[dawgfan]

It does not give you the right to use deadly force just because someone enters your home. All it does is say you no longer have to leave your home, if you can do so safely, to avoid a deadly confrontation.

The interpretation of your term, "forced to use lethal action", is the key. The law has very strict guidelines as to what situation they will recognize as being that circumstance. In most cases the law will not consider simple uninvited entry into your home as creating that situation. There must be other factors involved before deadly force can be used. Just because some drunk walks through your front door at 3:00am does not give you the right to kill them. However, if you have confronted the drunk and they continue to approach you it changes the situation. Even if he does not have any ability or intent to cause harm you have reasonable cause to believe he does because he will not back off. It's not your responsibility to give the guy a breathalyzer test and interview him to determine his motives. On the other hand, if you ambush the guy without warning just because he's in your home you could have very serious criminal charges brought against you.

StateLine gave you "The List" earlier.
Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy (Intent). The legal jargon for this is "Jeopardy", but in reality it is whether or not the person has the "Intent" to cause harm.

Before you pull the trigger you MUST have reasonable cause to believe ALL THREE of these things exist. These are the factors that the investigation will be looking for and if any one of them is not there you have a serious problem. Here are some examples of when one of them does not exist.

A man is five feet away from you with a gun in his hand. Shoot? Nope. He is walking into a gun shop for repairs. No intent.
A man is yelling threats at you with a knife in his had. Shoot? Nope. He is 30 yards away. No opportunity.
A person is saying they are going to kill you and is only five feet away. Shoot? Nope. You're a 6'4" 200 pound man and the person is a 100 pound unarmed woman. No ability.

Obviously these are extreme cases, but they demonstrate how these factors are considered in determining if deadly force was justified. In the real world these factors don't have to be nearly as extreme or obvious and the investigators are ALWAYS using perfect 20/20 hindsight to decide whether or not you committed a crime.

Part of a person's training should be running situations in your mind to become proficient at determining when all three of these exist in a confrontation and, even more importantly, when they DON'T. The first step in all of this is understanding and acceptance of this as the law. An investigator and the judge aren't going to give a damn whether or not you agree with it.

Ok,let's change slightly. Suppose the guy violently enters your home by kicking in your door. I'm sure you have justification to use lethal force at that point.

 

[StateLine]

Whatever force you use, you won't be tried on the internet.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

 

[izoid]

Ok,let's change slightly. Suppose the guy violently enters your home by kicking in your door. I'm sure you have justification to use lethal force at that point.

If you are upstairs asleep and go running down the stairs to confront him you will likely be in trouble. Don't go looking for trouble. Have a plan to stay between your family and the bad guy and if he comes to you then do what you need to do.

 

[protective measures]

Ok,let's change slightly. Suppose the guy violently enters your home by kicking in your door. I'm sure you have justification to use lethal force at that point.

If you were on a jury where that was the case (w/o getting into extensive other "what if " scenarios) wouldn't you think it would likely be reasonable to use lethal force or the threat of lethal force in that situation?

That is the point behind learning Use of Deadly Force & "Reasonable man doctrine" (a.k.a. ability, opportunity, jeopardy) for your state.
It's much more effective & affordable to learn them beforehand as opposed to after the fact.