-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Break in - can you shoot ?
- Thread starter StuP
- Start date
I believe in the state of GA they call this type of entry a forcible felony. Where the intruder has forced their way into a residence. This escalates the perpetrator into a new bracket of aggravated circumstances. I feel like the distance is key in the OP’s lay out. 25’ is a long ways to identify a immediate deadly threat to ones life. Now if you were within attack range of this forcible felony perp, and your dogs life is in jeopardy, intervening to stop damage to property wouldn’t be unreasonable. During this intervention the perp is displaying an immediate threat, and here comes the deadly force authorization. IMO that’s the way it should or could play out.
also surprised no one has plot twisted this and made the Intruder the ATF since a dog being killed is part of the story lol.
"
Sadly 'No', in the State of Georgia, a dog is considered 'property', you may NOT use 'deadly force' if someone is going to steal or injure your property.
However, if you believe someone is going to harm or kill you or a member of your family, you may use deadly force. If someone comes into your hope (stealthily) to steal your property you cannot use deadly force - you can 'hurt them', but not use deadly force.
This might help:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-21/
This is truly laughable. Anyone who breaks into my home, whether “stealthily” or with a loud crash, I will immediately judge to be a threat to my person and my family.
In that situation I don’t have time to conduct an interview with them about their intentions.
Lots of dead folks who assumed the intruder was only there for the silverware.
There are a lot of opinions on this thread and a lot of bold ODT'ers who sound like they wouldn't hesitate to kill. In this hypothetical, you better hesitate. According to the OP, there is time to hesitate. If you don't, you will have a wife who is cleaning the blood off the floor while you are in jail.
I think this is sound advice from @GAgunLAWbooklet:
Dogs are property and you cannot use deadly force to protect property. So, if fear for your dog's life is all that you are considering, you are going to jail.
"I think that this requirement, imposed on you by the law regardless of your feelings, also carries and IMPLIED duty to honestly evaluate the performance of your first-deployed line of self-defense (in this case, your dog) and only go to guns if a REASONABLE PERSON in your situation would also think the dog may not keep the intruder fully occupied or just incapacitate him."
Also from @GAgunLAWbooklet,
"Using deadly force to defend your habitation is OK if (and only if) you reasonably believe that it's necessary to prevent the burglar from committing a further felony (aside from the burglary itself) inside the home.
Like, for example, brandishing that knife at you in a way that would be aggravated assault, putting you in reasonable fear of getting cut. Or, in another example on the same facts, you believe the burglar has already used "force" to get into your home-- broke a window, pried-open a door lock, picked a lock, etc. This "habitation" law draws a distinction between a break-in and somebody just letting themselves in through an unlocked door."
My point here is the intruder is 25' away with a knife- not a gun- and is temporarily distracted by your property. Wisdom says that a reasonable man should hesitate with deadly force until things become more obvious, especially if he doesn't fully know the gun laws. An intruder with a knife in his hand- especially if he isn't threatening you with it at the moment- may not be enough of a reason to use deadly force.
As a rule in this hypothetical: Use deadly force only if your life or the lives of your family members are imminently in danger. In this scenario, with these strict facts in play, there seems to be not enough threat to warrant deadly force- even with an intruder in your home.
In today's world, you best be dang sure!
I think this is sound advice from @GAgunLAWbooklet:
Dogs are property and you cannot use deadly force to protect property. So, if fear for your dog's life is all that you are considering, you are going to jail.
"I think that this requirement, imposed on you by the law regardless of your feelings, also carries and IMPLIED duty to honestly evaluate the performance of your first-deployed line of self-defense (in this case, your dog) and only go to guns if a REASONABLE PERSON in your situation would also think the dog may not keep the intruder fully occupied or just incapacitate him."
Also from @GAgunLAWbooklet,
"Using deadly force to defend your habitation is OK if (and only if) you reasonably believe that it's necessary to prevent the burglar from committing a further felony (aside from the burglary itself) inside the home.
Like, for example, brandishing that knife at you in a way that would be aggravated assault, putting you in reasonable fear of getting cut. Or, in another example on the same facts, you believe the burglar has already used "force" to get into your home-- broke a window, pried-open a door lock, picked a lock, etc. This "habitation" law draws a distinction between a break-in and somebody just letting themselves in through an unlocked door."
My point here is the intruder is 25' away with a knife- not a gun- and is temporarily distracted by your property. Wisdom says that a reasonable man should hesitate with deadly force until things become more obvious, especially if he doesn't fully know the gun laws. An intruder with a knife in his hand- especially if he isn't threatening you with it at the moment- may not be enough of a reason to use deadly force.
As a rule in this hypothetical: Use deadly force only if your life or the lives of your family members are imminently in danger. In this scenario, with these strict facts in play, there seems to be not enough threat to warrant deadly force- even with an intruder in your home.
In today's world, you best be dang sure!
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Plus, hypothetical situations are only useful for discussion in "what if" scenarios, but they do not contribute anything in the way of actual reaction behavior in crisis situations. Most of us may have good intentions as to how we would handle the hypothetical example given, but in reality at the time, we may not even be able to remember our own names. Easy to surmise when sitting in front of a keyboard, but when you are facing a threat, half asleep and with a bloodstream full of adrenaline, then all bets are off.
I would estimate that 90% of gun owners today go to the range/practice maybe once a month, if that. They hang up a paper target at 7 yards and carefully take their time trying to hit the center of the target. When they have a reasonable "group" they consider that they are now "trained" for another month, and able to protect their, and their families' lives from danger. In reality, they have little hope of disabling a knife wielding stranger when they are full of adrenaline, half asleep and in fear of their lives with a dog barking and wife/children screaming in the background.
In the hypothetical example given, for me, the key considerations would be: 1. The individual broke into my home, 2. He is carrying a knife. 3. I am a reasonably skilled handgun shooter but I am not Jerry Miculek.
Bottom line is that I think it would be fair to assume that the individual does not plan on being a well mannered guest, and dog or not, with a knife in hand he is a threat to me and my family's lives. Then I would react accordingly, and hope that I have enough self control to eliminate the threat.
OCGA 16-3-23 does not say any thing about preventing a burglar from preventing a further felony other than the burglary itself....
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
§ 16-3-23 - Use of force in defense of habitation
O.C.G.A. 16-3-23 (2010)
16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
