Man on your property

[tmoore912]

Hey tmoore's on a role!

I just want everyone to be working off the same laws.

 

[beaker]

I just want everyone to be working off the same laws.

Seems pretty clear to me based on the way the law reads as to whether one would be justified in shooting someone who was breaking into their house.

 

[Wolf six]

Sit on the front porch with an AK in your lap. I've learned this cures peoples bad behavior quickly

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I don't care if they burn my house down. As long as me and my family can get out without being hurt, that's what we are doing. ONLY if the bad guy becomes a direct threat would I use deadly force...If there is an alternative, use it. Even if that means getting the family out the back door while the bad guy is breaking in the front door.

Burning down your house is not a direct threat? Not to mention first degree arson is, by definition a forcible felony, the halt of which is allowed by lethal force.

 

[Bear44]

What about Castle Doctrine?

The Castle Doctrine says that you no longer have to retreat if you can do it safely. That is the ONLY difference. It does not say you can kill someone for entering your home.

The law before CD or SYG was that you must retreat from a situation if you can do so without increasing the danger to yourself. You no longer are required to do that in certain situations. It does not mean that the three elements do not need to exist.

With that said, I have no interest in testing the new laws if I can retreat safely. I also can't think of a single thing I own that I would be willing to kill someone to keep. But that's just me.

 

[captdave77]

Just take off your clothes and walk out in the yard and say with arms outstretched "you look like you need a hug."

That's funny ****.

 

[Bear44]

Weapons Related Georgia Code

Found In LexisNexis by searching for "16-3-21" or in the TOC under:
Title 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
Article 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
The code sections are all Copyright © 2012 by The State of Georgia

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21
Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

(a) 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 defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c) Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.
HISTORY: Laws 1833, Cobb's 1851 Digest, p. 785; Code 1863, § 4230; Code 1868, § 4267; Code 1873, § 4333; Code 1882, § 4333; Penal Code 1895, § 73; Penal Code 1910, § 73; Code 1933, § 26-1014; Code 1933, § 26-902, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1975, p. 1209, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 1716, § 2; Ga. L. 2001, p. 1247, § 1.

Just to be clear; none of your posts show any legal ability to protect property with deadly force. All they show is that you no longer have to retreat if you can do it safely. If you do not retreat from an intruder and kill them without reasonable cause to believe the intruder had the ability, opportunity and intent to cause you or a third person serious injury independent from the act of entering your home you will be guilty of manslaughter.

The fact is, if someone walks into your home, picks up your TV while you're watching it and walks out with it you are not legally able to use deadly force to stop them. The situation would have to escalate to the point the intruder was showing the three elements before you could use deadly force.

 

[CCW]

The fact is, if someone walks into your home, picks up your TV while you're watching it and walks out with it you are not legally able to use deadly force to stop them. The situation would have to escalate to the point the intruder was showing the three elements before you could use deadly force.

When he tries to walk out, stand in front him and block the door.

 

[Bear44]

Burning down your house is not a direct threat? Not to mention first degree arson is, by definition a forcible felony, the halt of which is allowed by lethal force.

It is not a direct threat by itself. It is an attack against your house, not you. If the purpose of burning the house was a clear attempt to trap you in it while it burns, that is a different story.

My understanding of "forcible felony" is that it must include some physical attack against a person. First degree arson is a felony, not a forcible felony.

 

[Bear44]

When he tries to walk out, stand in front him and block the door.

Hell, tackle his ass and punch his lights out. Just don't use deadly force unless he becomes a deadly threat as defined by the three elements while you are doing it.