Castle Doctrine in GA.

[spencer60]

Let me ask you this question. If I become the target of someone's road rage and they follow me through a parking lot. When I stop in the parking lot he comes up to my car, yelling and screaming, and starts pulling on the door handle. Am I allowed to threaten/use deadly force at that point?

As usual, PM's answer is spot-on. Your job is certainly not to confront the road-rager, but to call 911 and meet up with a cop ASAP. Drive to a police station if you have to.

Yelling and screaming may signal an intent to do you harm, but if you are locked in your car the road-rager really doesn't have the Ability to do you real harm. You would be hard pressed to explain shooting someone in that position.

Even if they start pounding on the car with their fists, they still don't really have the Ability to harm you. At worst they would cause some property damage to the vehicle, and as pointed out above, you are not allowed (in GA) to use lethal force simply to protect property.

Unless they escalate to using a potentially lethal weapon themselves, you really won't have a good legal defense for shooting someone who was simply yelling at you. The old 'sticks and stones' rhyme sums up this perfectly.

 

[NY63]

Why would you stop in the parking lot?
If you can drive away, do so. Always create distance from a threat. That technique works for me even if its just to avoid my wife who is in a bad mood.

The typically court expects a civilian to "de-escalate" a situation wherever possible.
In the aforementioned situation if you were blocked in & COULDN'T drive away and there was disparity of force wherein the attacker had the ability, opportunity, & displayed through their actions or words intent to cause you death or grave bodily harm... THEN you should be justified in the ise of deadly force.

It should be your last option.... not your first one.

This falls under what you can do and what you should do.

You may have every right to walk through downtown Atlanta at midnight, but you probably shouldn't.

A "road-rager" may follow you home so it may be safer to drive to a police precinct. But if you don't know where one is you have a right to defend yourself wherever you are in Georgia. Police are not always available.

A key thing to keep in mind is the person using unlawful force against you or a third person is in the wrong. A threat or act of deadly force may be the only option in a rapidly-evolving situation.

Awareness, preparedness, knowledge and skill, and common sense are needed to have the best outcome. But sometimes it still won't end well.

If you can avoid trouble then you should, but not at the risk of your safety and that of those for whom you are responsible.

 

[protective measures]

It is so nice to see helpful, sensible, & accurate advice here vs. the old days on this forum.

 

[Dan4010]

If any of you have questions about Georgia weapons and carry laws, you should seriously consider buying the Georgia Weapons Laws book, that has a Layman's summary at the end of each law. That provides an easy to read explanation of the law.... check out this site if you are interested.

http://www.urbansurvivalcenter.net/#!preview-the-book/c1lhs

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Dan and I were talking about the "castle doctrine" laws about defense of habitation the other day, since we give lectures that include discussions of weapons laws and self-defense laws, and we decided that the law is too long and detailed to remember in an emergency. All you can do is make what you think is a necessary and reasonable choice under the circumstances, having only a second or fraction of a second to decide on a course of action. THEN, hope for the best as the authorities investigate the incident and study the applicable laws line-by-line and subsection-by-subsection. This is also why you should either make NO statement at the scene of a self-defense shooting, or at most make a BRIEF statement announcing that you shot in self-defense (or defense of another, whatever applies) and that you were in fear for your safety (or that other innocent person's safety) and then you SHUT UP. Tell the cops that you cannot speak any more until after you've talked to a lawyer. (Even if you're not yet under arrest and the Miranda warnings don't have to be read to you by the LEO, you still HAVE all those rights, and if you remember them on your own without a reminder, you can invoke them.)

After you've had a chance to calm down and talk to a lawyer, THEN you and your lawyer can make the choice to give your side of the story to the police, making sure not to forget to mention the key facts that highlight why this was a lawful self-defense incident.

 

[Cobalt 60]

Dan and I were talking about the "castle doctrine" laws about defense of habitation the other day, since we give lectures that include discussions of weapons laws and self-defense laws, and we decided that the law is too long and detailed to remember in an emergency. All you can do is make what you think is a necessary and reasonable choice under the circumstances, having only a second or fraction of a second to decide on a course of action. THEN, hope for the best as the authorities investigate the incident and study the applicable laws line-by-line and subsection-by-subsection. This is also why you should either make NO statement at the scene of a self-defense shooting, or at most make a BRIEF statement announcing that you shot in self-defense (or defense of another, whatever applies) and that you were in fear for your safety (or that other innocent person's safety) and then you SHUT UP. Tell the cops that you cannot speak any more until after you've talked to a lawyer. (Even if you're not yet under arrest and the Miranda warnings don't have to be read to you by the LEO, you still HAVE all those rights, and if you remember them on your own without a reminder, you can invoke them.)

After you've had a chance to calm down and talk to a lawyer, THEN you and your lawyer can make the choice to give your side of the story to the police, making sure not to forget to mention the key facts that highlight why this was a lawful self-defense incident.

This 100%

The standard essentially boils down to "what would a reasonable ordinary person do in the situation"

 

[Aimless]

There have been situations where law biding citizens ended up in a shoot out with police because the police kicked their door in at 2AM in a botched raid. The out come of this situations are all over the place. In some situations they charge the shooter. In others nothing happens. A couple that pop into my mine.

Cory Maye
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye

Goedrich Magee
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/07/1...shot-and-killed-officer-during-no-knock-raid/

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/0...rkansas-man-charged-with-assaulting-officers/

The sad part is more often than not there is a shoot out and the innocent civilian is the one that ends up in prison, facing prison or worse, is dead over a botched raid. The only one who pays for a botched raid seems to be the citizens right now. The Goedrich Magee case is one of the more uncommon turn of events in that his case ended up alright. Except he probably had some pretty monster sized legal fees.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I don't see that anybody in this thread mentioned the BENHAM case (Ga. Supreme Court, 2004).
Mrs. Benham was in a car arguing with a woman who was standing outside her car.
The other woman leaned into the car and assaulted Benham.
Benham used her knife to slash and wound this woman.
Was that legal defense of habitation (occupied car = habitation, just like your home or place of business), OR was it unlawful because she over-reacted to an unarmed attack and thus the use of a deadly weapon (knife) was not something a reasonable person would believe is NECESSARY to repel the attack?

COURT MAJORITY (my paraphrase): In your "habitation" there is no requirement that you only use the minimum force reasonably necessary. If the offender's actions meet one of the statutory schemes justifying a deadly force response, you can go for it without necessarily being reasonable.

COURT DISSENT(my paraphrase): Both the regular defense law and the habitation defense law require that before a defender can use deadly force, it must reasonably appear to be necesary under the circumstances. There is no statutory or caselaw support for declaring open season on attackers the way the majority just held above.

Case: BENHAM v. STATE, 277 Ga. 516; 591 S.E.2d at 825 (January, 2004)

 

[Traderjohn]

This 100%

The standard essentially boils down to "what would a reasonable ordinary person do in the situation"

What's reasonable and ordinary?

Who sets the standards?

 

[protective measures]

What's reasonable and ordinary?

Who sets the standards?

If there is any question then it could be a "jury of your peers".

Understanding the "reasonable man doctrine" & buying & studying the above "Ga Gun Law Booklet" along w/ spending time reading the O.C.G.A. codes is a great way to avoid such a dilemma.

We are very fortunate to have the resources available on these subjects that were not available previously.