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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
What about Castle Doctrine?
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-georgiaThe 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.
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 . . ."
Your understanding is flawed.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.