- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,921
- Reaction score
- 73,993
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.
Do you have any authority for that, or are you just making up what seems right to you? I hate to be too critical, but Big Mike was correct. Either deadly force is authorized or it isn't. And, as you point out, the so-called "less lethal" ammos are still lethal. Shooting them is using deadly force. To say that it's okay (legal) to use less lethal ammo on an unarmed burglar and more lethal ammo on an armed burglar is just not true. If you're having to split hairs over what part of the body you're aiming at, you're in big trouble.Some idiot stealing a TV isn't exactly a threat to your life and it can be replaced, but using less lethal force is very well justified.
Under 16-3-23(3), if the deadly force is necessary to prevent the burglary, then deadly force is authorized. But whether the burglar is armed while carrying the TV is not really part of the statute.But if someone breaks in to steal a TV and you see a gun in their waist, that's justifiable for live ammo.
That's true (16-3-21(a)).Deadly force is legally justified in the prevention of a forcible felony.
I was attempting to address the references to looting. But yes, if I am sitting in my store, guarding it, and I ask you to not break in and you go away, then deadly force is not warranted. You pick up the brick, and.....That's true (16-3-21(a)).
But burglary is not a forcible felony. 16-1-3(6).
Anyway, make notes of necessary and reasonable.Do you have any authority for that, or are you just making up what seems right to you? I hate to be too critical, but Big Mike was correct. Either deadly force is authorized or it isn't. And, as you point out, the so-called "less lethal" ammos are still lethal. Shooting them is using deadly force. To say that it's okay (legal) to use less lethal ammo on an unarmed burglar and more lethal ammo on an armed burglar is just not true. If you're having to split hairs over what part of the body you're aiming at, you're in big trouble.
Under 16-3-23(3), if the deadly force is necessary to prevent the burglary, then deadly force is authorized. But whether the burglar is armed while carrying the TV is not really part of the statute.
It can be, if done in a violent or tumultuous manner, and the building is occupied.That's true (16-3-21(a)).
But burglary is not a forcible felony. 16-1-3(6).
It sounds more like are you describing a circumstance when deadly force is authorized in defense of habitation, 16-3-23(1) (When the "entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner...."), and you are correct that deadly force is authorized then, but that does not make burglary a forcible felony. It's possible for a forcible felony to be committed in conjunction with a burglary (e.g., assault, rape, murder, etc.), but burglary is not defined to be a forcible felony.It can be, if done in a violent or tumultuous manner, and the building is occupied.
Is it legal to pop someone with non lethal ammo in defense of your property from looters in the state of Ga. ?
this is a legit question, not looking for personal opinions.
No but their estate and next of kin can.Dead men dont file civil lawsuits