Man on your property

[rlt3241963]

Unless he is on drugs like PCP or some other type on those lines just showing that you are armed is enough to make him stop in his tracks and leave. Only and idiot would continue to approach.

 

[tmoore912]

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.

Bear44,
My post are to show people who want to read for themselves, what the law actually says. I'm not here to tell anyone how to interpret them. Most, just simply have never read the laws dealing with deadly force.

 

[tmoore912]

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.

I will have to disagree with you on the way you think the law in Georgia has been/ ever was with regards to Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. Georgia has never been a state where you had to retreat from a threat. Ed Stone (Past President of GeorgiaCarry.org) wrote a good article about this back in March of this year. http://www.examiner.com/article/stand-your-ground-has-always-been-the-law-georgia

Georgia is not a duty to retreat state. In 2006, the General Assembly passed SB 396, a bill that codified into statute what has always been the law in Georgia, that there is no duty to retreat before using force in self defense. SB 396 also added immunity provisions that protect those defending themselves from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

There has never been a duty to retreat in the entire history of Georgia, including when it was an English colony. Roswell attorney John Monroe points to the 1898 Supreme Court case of Glover v. State, 105 Ga. 597, which held that a person who is not at fault in initiating violence "may, without retreating, take human life" if he is acting to keep a felony from being committed upon him. A person who is at fault, however, in initiating the violence, must retreat. "One who is himself to blame, however, has not the same right of standing his ground . . ."

 

[rOmiLaYu]

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.

Your understanding is flawed.

If you're willing to run and cower while others invade and destroy your home, that's you're perogative. You'll forgive the rest of us if we don't hold that perspective.

 

[tmoore912]

A very good read about defense of home scenario in Augusta, GA. in early 2007. Renter found that his place had been burglarized when he came home from class early. Found some of his firearms were missing. Grabbed a rifle to clear the house and called 911, then noticed the thief coming back to the house over the back fence. Didn't know if thief had his firearms, he hid in a dark room and shot the intruder as he walked in the room.

You can read the rest here: http://georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4951

 

[tmoore912]

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.

Defense of a Habitation (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) is not just justified to prevent a forcible felony. It can also be used to prevent the commission of just a plain old felony. Read the quoted code.

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation

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 prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(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;

(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

(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.

 

[sovietak474u]

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.

well then you have a broke TV.

 

[thorn]

Sweet jesus don't abuse the phrase SYG. even without the legislation it is a high bar to cross, you have to have certainty of safe escape in non SYG, when does one ever have certainty of safe escape in a justified shooting. I support SYG, but don't use it incorrectly it makes the law look ridiculous. Also no one wants to kill someone, its a hassle, if you feel safe walking away do it and call the cops, shoot as a last resort. this guy sums up my feelings on that.

By entering your home you wasted time, he could have easily kicked the door and got to you before you got to the gun.

This video is awesome. Thanks for posting it; I'll be using it with students in the near future.

 

[Junior_357]

You seriously need to read this thread. It might keep you from going to jail for a very long time, which is exactly what would happen if you did what you say you would.

Hopefully...I will never be in such a situation. But I tell you this - if I am on property I lawfully own, and I ask - nay - TELL the person to leave my property immediately, and he continues to advance towards my person in a threatening or menacing manner...he will find himself in grave danger of losing his life. I'm not going to pursue him, or shoot him as long as the person leaves when directed to do so. Just the act of advancement after being told to leave is in itself a threat to my person. At that point...I would prefer to be tried by twelve than carried by six...so I would take my chances.

Unless he is on drugs like PCP or some other type on those lines just showing that you are armed is enough to make him stop in his tracks and leave. Only and idiot would continue to approach.

My point exactly. Said person would have to know he doesn't belong on my property, and should leave peaceably when requested. If he stays...well, there's only one cure for stupidity...

If you're willing to run and cower while others invade and destroy your home, that's you're perogative. You'll forgive the rest of us if we don't hold that perspective.

Agreed. If I am existing peacefully on my own property...and someone chooses to threaten me...I highly doubt that I going to retreat more than required to protect my person. I won't be driven from my home...or my property. As long as I am not instigating the encounter (which I would not be in this case), then I have no duty to retreat under Georgia law (at least from what I have read).

 

[Bear44]

OK guys, I give up. Sooner or later someone that is a member of ODT will use deadly force in an unlawful manner because of the overwhelming and wrong interpretations of the law presented here. Then everyone will be mad because the laws are so unfair and they didn't know any better. Of course the poor sap that believes you will be spending a long time behind bars because of that. Which one of you will it be?

Basic philosophy: If you don't absolutely HAVE to kill someone.......don't.