• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Break in - can you shoot ?

^^^^^^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.


Firearms training is only a little bitty piece of the puzzle, mindset will to fight and having a warriors mentality are more important than being an expert shooter in these cases, I would take mediocre shot with the fighting spirit of a warrior than a expert marksman with no fighting spirit any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Firearms training is only a little bitty piece of the puzzle, mindset will to fight and having a warriors mentality are more important than being an expert shooter in these cases, I would take mediocre shot with the fighting spirit of a warrior than a expert marksman with no fighting spirit any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I can only agree with this in situations where the "warrior" has license to kill, and permission to decide himself/herself when to do this. The rest of us have to be more aware of the outcomes related to bad decisions made within the framework of the law and the abilities of experienced prosecuting attorneys.

Otherwise we may be facing some heavy duty jail time about which the "warrior" would usually not have to worry. I say "usually" because of late it seems like our politicians are setting the rules as to when and where our "warriors" are allowed to kill the enemy. Nobody should have to face prosecution for defending their life or the lives of their family or comrades..
 
I can only agree with this in situations where the "warrior" has license to kill, and permission to decide himself/herself when to do this. The rest of us have to be more aware of the outcomes related to bad decisions made within the framework of the law and the abilities of experienced prosecuting attorneys.

Otherwise we may be facing some heavy duty jail time about which the "warrior" would usually not have to worry. I say "usually" because of late it seems like our politicians are setting the rules as to when and when not our "warriors" are allowed to kill the enemy. Nobody should have to face prosecution for defending their life or the lives of their family or comrades..

If you want to go with the scenario laid out and go by OCGA 16-3-23 I am not sure why this scenario has any kind of debate, GA law gives a clear path to several outcomes in this scenario to include the use of deadly force all within the parameters of the law.
 
If you want to go with the scenario laid out and go by OCGA 16-3-23 I am not sure why this scenario has any kind of debate, GA law gives a clear path to several outcomes in this scenario to include the use of deadly force all within the parameters of the law.
Agree, as stated in OCGA 16-3-23 "(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." The forced entry and possession of a knife fit this condition if the homeowner feels the knife is a threat to his life, being that assault with a deadly weapon is a felony. The intruder is deceased and we only have the homeowner's (and wife's?) account of the confrontation. No charges against the homeowner.
 
Agree, as stated in OCGA 16-3-23 "(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." The forced entry and possession of a knife fit this condition if the homeowner feels the knife is a threat to his life, being that assault with a deadly weapon is a felony. The intruder is deceased and we only have the homeowner's (and wife's?) account of the confrontation. No charges against the homeowner.

Forced entry into the home is a forcible felony whether they had the knife or not, the knife is just an additional circumstance to add to the list.
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
 
Forced entry into the home is a forcible felony whether they had the knife or not, the knife is just an additional circumstance to add to the list.
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
I rest my case :hand:.
 
Forced entry of a building is NOT a "forcible felony" as the term is used in Georgia's self-defense laws. A forcible felony means a violent felony--one with physical force or threats of it against a person.
 
Forced entry of a building is NOT a "forcible felony" as the term is used in Georgia's self-defense laws. A forcible felony means a violent felony--one with physical force or threats of it against a person.

Your definition is close but not quite, there are other instances were forcible felony applies to include treason or insurrection.
 
Forced entry of a building is NOT a "forcible felony" as the term is used in Georgia's self-defense laws. A forcible felony means a violent felony--one with physical force or threats of it against a person.

In this case and the definition forced entry into the home is defined by GA as a forcible felony, as robbery and burglary are both one of the offenses that are included in the definition, reference 16-11-131. but in this scenario in the home, use of deadly force does not have to involve a forcible felony per say (mis use of words earlier). by default
the offenses listed are in an of themselves a threat of physical force or violence. But using 16-3-23 as the basis of use of force for the home scenario just mere presence in those circumstances would give statutory justification for the use of deadly force.

Taken from 16-11-131 (e)
(e) As used in this Code section, the term 'forcible felony' means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person and further includes, without limitation, murder; felony murder; burglary; robbery; armed robbery; kidnapping; hijacking of an aircraft or motor vehicle; aggravated stalking; rape; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; arson in the first degree; the manufacturing, transporting, distribution, or possession of explosives with intent to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals or destroy a public building; terroristic threats; or acts of treason or insurrection.
 
Back
Top Bottom