Castle Doctrine in GA.

[Cobalt 60]

What PM said ^^^^

There are no bright line rules here.

 

[protective measures]

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.

That is almost verbatim what I tell my students in the classroom portion of my classes.

Although most "good people" feel the need to validate their actions to L.E. unless you are in the habit of shooting people on a regular basis then you will not be in the right frame of mind to be giving lengthy statements on what just happened as the EMT's are working on your down & possibly dying assailant bleeding out nearby.

One exception that I recommend is that if there is something evidentiary in nature that will help you short, simple statements such as, " He had a gun & threw it under that dumpster. I thought he/she/ they was or were going to kill me." can help establish what happened but as "GGLB" suggests, asking to call your attorney then exercising the "right to remain silent" & taking some time to try to calm down are recommendations given by all experts in this field & should be taken to heart.

 

[dougiemac]

Never ever ever ever never ever ever never ever ever never ever ever talk to the police.

 

[turner7]

As a LEO I can say that the Castle Doctrine is my favorite piece of legislature. Everyone has the right to protect their lives and property and should make a decent effort to do so. In the jurisdiction I serve, there are 10,000 citizens and the Sheriff's Office has only 15 sworn Deputies. That means there will most likely not be an officer close by when you need one. Its just the way things are. This is one of the main reasons the Castle Doctrine was entered into law.

 

[zombie slider]

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)

So just to clarify, most people read it as she was in the right but a few read it as did she really have reason to believe she was going to be harmed? Isnt assault a forcible felony?

 

[mgonza]

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)

So if you happen to be carrying at a school and stop a mass shooter, does that mean that you would get a ticket for carrying in a prohibited area, or be charged as if the stand your ground law did not exist?

 

[sc951]

It's always better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6

 

[jcountry]

That is almost verbatim what I tell my students in the classroom portion of my classes.

Although most "good people" feel the need to validate their actions to L.E. unless you are in the habit of shooting people on a regular basis then you will not be in the right frame of mind to be giving lengthy statements on what just happened as the EMT's are working on your down & possibly dying assailant bleeding out nearby.

One exception that I recommend is that if there is something evidentiary in nature that will help you short, simple statements such as, " He had a gun & threw it under that dumpster. I thought he/she/ they was or were going to kill me." can help establish what happened but as "GGLB" suggests, asking to call your attorney then exercising the "right to remain silent" & taking some time to try to calm down are recommendations given by all experts in this field & should be taken to heart.

This video should be required viewing for anyone who might ever need to defend themselves......

(Dude talks fast, but makes a lot of EXCELLENT points.)

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

So just to clarify, most people read it as she was in the right but a few read it as did she really have reason to believe she was going to be harmed? Isnt assault a forcible felony?

The phrase "forcible felony" means a felony crime (one that could get the offender more than 1 year on a single count, not by adding multiple shorter sentences together) that has violence or the threat of violence against a person.

Punching somebody with a bare hand is force, but this sounds like misdemeanor assault and battery.

It's not carjacking, which in Georgia is called Hijacking a Vehicle (Code section 16-5-44.1). That requires both a weapon AND the attacker trying to steal the car.

Mrs. Benham's best defense came from the DEFENSE OF HABITATION law, which has three alternative scenarios in which deadly force is approved.
The first being: (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;

That is the part of the law that I think applies, and I'd say that it even applies and should have gotten Mrs. Benham off "even if" the justices found that there is still a duty to only use the minimum amount of force reasonably necessary to repel the attack. When somebody is reaching in your car and trying to beat you up or drag you out of the car, I think slashing them is generally a reasonable and "necessary" way to halt the attack and reduce their chances of success. But the court said, basically, that we don't look to how reasonable the armed citizen behaved when she's in her habitation. We only look to how UNREASONABLE and illegal the offender behaved.

 

[crgargan]

This video should be required viewing for anyone who might ever need to defend themselves......

(Dude talks fast, but makes a lot of EXCELLENT points.)

What a great video. Very strong points and I never thought about it in those terms. However, as I recently served on a jury I can easily see how small bits of information can be negative even when given honestly.

By the way this is a great thread for all to read.