Can someone tell me if this is true or not??

[sovietak474u]

Here we go again.

You can not use deadly force to protect property and you must have reasonable cause to believe that a person has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause you or a third person serious harm.

The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws simply mean that you are no longer required to escape from the situation if you can do so without increasing the threat to yourself.

If he has the power to kick down my door than he must be a strong mofo hopped up on crack cocaine.

 

[Cobalt 60]

This is why Burglary of the First Degree (burglary of a habitation) carries a bigger penalty than Burglary of the Second Degree (burglary of a structure other than a habitation). When you break down someone's door, it is pretty reasonable to think they are there to do harm to the occupant. I am certainly going to assume that, and have no intention of asking the perp if they are there simply for my stuff.

If you come home and there are people ransacking your empty house, that is a very different story.

Basically, you can shoot someone breaking into your house if you are there. You can't shoot someone who is clearly just trying to steal your stuff.

But all that being said, read the code for yourself. Not a bad idea to read the annotations if you have the time to go to your county's law library. Don't trust the word of anyone on here or a police officer. Find a good instructor who knows what he is talking about maybe.

GA Code can be found here: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

The test is "what would an ordinary reasonable person believe?" If you see a couple of preteens trying to break in with their skateboards and you are a big strapping dude, it's probably not reasonable to believe you are in danger. If you are an overweight weakling like me and the perp or perps are busting in your front door, then you are definitely in danger.

 

[sovietak474u]

This is why Burglary of the First Degree (burglary of a habitation) carries a bigger penalty than Burglary of the Second Degree (burglary of a structure other than a habitation). When you break down someone's door, it is pretty reasonable to think they are there to do harm to the occupant. I am certainly going to assume that, and have no intention of asking the perp if they are there simply for my stuff.

If you come home and there are people ransacking your empty house, that is a very different story.

Basically, you can shoot someone breaking into your house if you are there. You can't shoot someone who is clearly just trying to steal your stuff.

You can point a firearm at them and tell them to hit the deck. Then if they come at you bro... boom boom.

 

[Deaken]

[video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24[/video]

 

[sovietak474u]

I have a feel for the law but in a possible life and death event, Im not about to second guess myself. If I feel my life is in danger im going to protect myself. Id rather sit in jail and wonder if I made the right choice or not than for my family to wonder why I made the wrong choice cause im dead.

 

[offbeat404]

[video=youtube_share;udNHsk57f24]http://youtu.be/udNHsk57f24[/video]

fo sho!

 

[jcp42877]

This is why Burglary of the First Degree (burglary of a habitation) carries a bigger penalty than Burglary of the Second Degree (burglary of a structure other than a habitation). When you break down someone's door, it is pretty reasonable to think they are there to do harm to the occupant. I am certainly going to assume that, and have no intention of asking the perp if they are there simply for my stuff.

If you come home and there are people ransacking your empty house, that is a very different story.

Basically, you can shoot someone breaking into your house if you are there. You can't shoot someone who is clearly just trying to steal your stuff.

i agree with all of this.

I already knew you couldn't shoot to kill for someone stealing my stuff, but of that is their intention or not; you break down my door, you're getting shot.

When I go to trial, I'll say intelligently "I felt my person, and my families lives were in danger, so I eliminated the threat with deadly force allowed by code *yadda uadda*", and I'm sticking to that.

 

[ftjandra]

not gonna shoot them in the leg and wait for the police

Dear God, I know you said "not," but I hope that thought never even crossed your mind.

If any person has time to aim and shoot a leg or other extremity, then it could be argued in court that you had time to run away. You don't shoot to maim someone. You shoot someone to stop the threat from advancing.

Simply put, if you have time to aim that carefully, you will get it served to you in court.

 

[Lockout]

Here we go again.

You can not use deadly force to protect property and you must have reasonable cause to believe that a person has the ability, opportunity and intent to cause you or a third person serious harm.

The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws simply mean that you are no longer required to escape from the situation if you can do so without increasing the threat to yourself.

DING DONG

AND THOSE that says they will shoot someone will be in prison,or spending a ton of money fighting for their freedom.Everyone can act tough but when shtf I bet they will be crying in jail pleading to be release and sorry to the persons family too.

 

[Lockout]

You can point a firearm at them and tell them to hit the deck. Then if they come at you bro... boom boom.

You could also be charged with felony assault too